Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
oh look, more faux outrage (and another lie in the title of the thread), over a section of the critiqued law that allows for a delay.
Nothing in the US Constitution has been suspended.
Where in the law does it allow Obama to make the delay?
Obama was not able to give a reason as to how this is legal nor was he able to point out where in the law it gives him this right. In fact Obama didn't even say it was in the law, he argued it was in the constitution.
It would be great if you could find this phantom clause and we could pass it along to Obama.
Where in the law does it allow Obama to make the delay?
Obama was not able to give a reason as to how this is legal nor was he able to point out where in the law it gives him this right. In fact Obama didn't even say it was in the law, he argued it was in the constitution.
It would be great if you could find this phantom clause and we could pass it along to Obama.
Only Congress can stop what he did.
And they aren't.
So he does get away with it no matter if it's legal or not.
Correct. Lincoln is probably our worst president. He killed 800,000 Americans, more than any other leader in our history. He also set us on a path of bigger and bigger federal government.
Nonsense.
#1 Your number is high and what was Lincoln suppose to do? Let Democracy die? When ever someone didn't like an election they can simply break off thus allowing there to be no efficiency or purpose to government.
#2 Path to bigger government? I think you are confusing later presidents like Wilson and FDR with Lincoln. After Lincoln we went through a period of weak presidents and to a large extent decentralized power after reconstruction ended.
Back on task...
...what do you disagree/agree with about the article?
#1 Your number is high and what was Lincoln suppose to do? Let Democracy die? When ever someone didn't like an election they can simply break off thus allowing there to be no efficiency or purpose to government.
#2 Path to bigger government? I think you are confusing later presidents like Wilson and FDR with Lincoln. After Lincoln we went through a period of weak presidents and to a large extent decentralized power after reconstruction ended.
Back on task...
...what do you disagree/agree with about the article?
Lincoln was assassinated.
After JFK we went through a period of weak presidents.
JFK was assassinated as well.
Great article - really shows the president's lack of respect for the constitution in regards to Obamacare and his unilateral delays.
The author forgets to mention that past presidents when they have not enforced a law, they do so under the guise of it being unconstitutional. For the first time ever, we have a president saying the law is constitutional, but that he will just enforce the law as he chooses despite the law's specific requirements - in effect rewriting the requirements and deadlines - legislating from the White House.
We knew his spoken contempt for the Constitution already in his own words.
He has explicitly expressed that before he was even running for President and one of the reasons why some of knew not to vote for him in the first place.
We also know only what suits him Constitutionally is what matters to him.
#1 Your number is high and what was Lincoln suppose to do? Let Democracy die? When ever someone didn't like an election they can simply break off thus allowing there to be no efficiency or purpose to government.
#2 Path to bigger government? I think you are confusing later presidents like Wilson and FDR with Lincoln. After Lincoln we went through a period of weak presidents and to a large extent decentralized power after reconstruction ended.
Back on task...
...what do you disagree/agree with about the article?
His numbers are in the ballpark and Lincoln did not save democracy, he destroyed the Republic.
If you had any concept of history whatsoever you would know that it was the North that broke the contract between the states and made it null and void.
At the point where the north failed to abide by the Constitution then the Constitution failed to be in effect just like any other contract.
The south had every right to withdraw from the Union and Lincoln had no more right to conquer their land as Hitler had to invade Europe.
620,000 compared to 800,000 is about 30% overstated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
and Lincoln did not save democracy, he destroyed the Republic.
You would argue that we haven't been a republic since 1861? What is your definition of republic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
If you had any concept of history whatsoever you would know that it was the North that broke the contract between the states and made it null and void.
At the point where the north failed to abide by the Constitution then the Constitution failed to be in effect just like any other contract.
The south had every right to withdraw from the Union and Lincoln had no more right to conquer their land as Hitler had to invade Europe.
This is going to be good...
-How did the north violate the constitution pre-civil war? Specifically.
-Have you read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession? EVERY reason they give for seceding has to do with the protection of slavery. At one point, South Carolina even complains in the Declaration of Secession that some free blacks in some northern states have been allowed to vote. The horror!
-Have you read other southern state's Declaration of Secession?
-State's Rights is nonsense...the south frequently violated northern state's rights...the only consistency is the right to protect slavery. The south had been strengthening the federal government's power at the expense of state's rights to protect slavery.....Dredd Scott, Fugitive Slave Act, etc...
-If the someone can break off merely because they lost an election, then there is no point in having a country...might as well have anarchy. With Lincoln pledged to stop the expansion of slavery westward...the south knew the writing was on the wall....the House was by population, which was controlled by the north and its immigrants...the Senate was tied, but would be controlled by free states if Lincoln blocked the expansion of slavery to new lands west....and the White House as shown by Lincoln's 1860 election needed only northern states to pick the winner without a single southern state agreeing...the writing was on the wall that Lincoln's no expansion of slavery westward means a future president could easily ban slavery...
Last edited by michiganmoon; 08-17-2013 at 02:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
