Free For All
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 77
- Location
- Laramie, Wyoming
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).
In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.
You shouldn't be happy with errors even if they work for you. And like I explained it was not treason.
I will fight bad rulings in the courts if I can. You would as well if you knew what was good for you. Sadly, I fear you don't have a clue.
They weren't "occupying" anything. It was a United States fort. Just because the Confederates said it was there's doesn't make it there's.Oh so "occupying" a fort in the south wasn't enough to start a war? WHEN THE SOUTH TOLD THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT... that my friend is an invasion.
So you don't like his interpretation of the Constitution which makes him a dumbass. This is not a premise on which fruitful conversation can be had.
You have nothing to fear. Relax. Calm down. My knowledge of history is extensive and my knowledge of reality is even broader.
Does the welfare clause give power? Clearly not. Do you know why? Its not my interpretation, but common knowledge that the clause he referenced does not give power and proven by the founders themselves and the balance of power. If you want to support his claim I look forward to it. Until then, I'll see you around.
I agree with his interpretation - but we can scrap that interpretation if it makes you feel better and the end result is the same - the Confederate States committed treason.Does the welfare clause give power? Clearly not. Do you know why? Its not my interpretation, but common knowledge that the clause he referenced does not give power and proven by the founders themselves and the balance of power. If you want to support his claim I look forward to it. Until then, I'll see you around.
The welfare clearly provides Congress with the power to tax and spend. To say that the welfare clause "does not give power" is patently idiotic.
Oh so "occupying" a fort in the south wasn't enough to start a war? WHEN THE SOUTH TOLD THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT... that my friend is an invasion.
I agree with his interpretation - but we can scrap that interpretation if it makes you feel better and the end result is the same - the Confederate States committed treason.
You sure have a great way to show it.
The tenth amendment doesn't do squat. Besides, I already explained my reasoning, but I'll help you out and re-post it.No, if you scrap it the act falls under the tenth and you loss the argument. And you need to explain your reasoning.
Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).
In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.
Sorry, I spoke incorrectly. I meant to say it does NOT grant the government unlimited power to provide for the welfare of the people like the supreme court has ruled. Madison and the author of the constitution said no in Federalist 41.
By itself the words General Welfare has no authority so technically I wasn't wrong anyway, but felt I should correct the mistake I made there.
ME said:The term general welfare as in the "welfare clause" is describing the broad ends of the constitution i.e., justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty, It is meant to enlarge the dominion of government beyond the enumeration itself, but not to give power. In federalist #41 madison was talking about what "General Welfare" meant and why it was included in the document. In his explaining he is describing the purposes of the enumerated powers and provide more specific meaning to the general purposes of the government.
The tenth amendment doesn't do squat. Besides, I already explained my reasoning, but I'll help you out and re-post it.
Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).
In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.
??? Ft. Sumter was a Federal Installation - property of the United States, so no occupation or invasion took place. Possession was established before S. Carolina voted for secession, so logically were they not seeking an armed conflict, they could have negotiated a time frame for withdrawal and offered a payment for the property.
No it wasn't.The south asked... them... to.... leave. They didn't leave. That was the Souths territory.
Congratulations, you have just made the most incorrect statement in Debate Politics history. There is no prize, but you do get the consolation of knowing this post stood out. Thank you and good luck in your future endeavors.You have nothing to fear. Relax. Calm down. My knowledge of history is extensive and my knowledge of reality is even broader.
Actually no. The power to lay and collect taxes is concisely spelled out but must be uniform. The north did not in fact have to power to regionalize taxes and tariffs. They were wrong in that.The welfare clearly provides Congress with the power to tax and spend. To say that the welfare clause "does not give power" is patently idiotic.
The Tenth Amendment does absolutely nothing to contradict the fact that the states committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.So you think an amendment does nothing but an introduction gives power? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
So I have arguments, court rulings, the Constitutional definition of treason and presidential documents ... and you have ... snark. Thank you for your concession. This was fun.That just shows you don't understand what the word union means.
However, refusing to leave a military base, and in fact sending reinforcements to said base was viewed as an act of aggression.
His premise falls apart without the assertation. Makes perfect sense when you think as one who defends the premise over the debate.So you think an amendment does nothing but an introduction gives power? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
No it wasn't.
Why don't you address my actual arguments instead of talking to your friends?His premise falls apart without the assertation. Makes perfect sense when you think as one who defends the premise over the debate.
Why would they abandon their property?
Because it doesn't belong to them anymore.Why would they abandon their property?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?