View Poll Results: What does redneck refer to

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • It refers to a culture

    76 90.48%
  • It refers to a race

    8 9.52%
Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 363

Thread: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

  1. #351
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Funny, but I'm the only one using the Constitution of the United States, which is law and you are using rhetoric. Facts>Opinion.
    Funny, but I have brought the Constitution, two of our most important founders, and legal decisions to the table. Facts>Revisionism.

    Yes, it does since stare decisis says that it can be overturned for failing to adhere to tradition ie the Declaration of Independence, which is part of federal law.
    1) OK. Then they SCOTUS would also be bound to adhere to the preamble of the Constitution, again torpedoing your position. So, you have a choice, either reject stare decisis, and lose, or accept star decisis... and lose.
    2) Guess what? Nothing has been overturned. Secession is still illegal.



    Yes because we all know that your rhetoric trumps actual law and facts.
    I'm the only one presenting law and facts. You are presenting revision.



    Your point does not apply nor does your rhetoric. Bring facts to the table not your rhetoric and screams of I'm right without proof!
    When you have some proof, let me know. So far, all I've seen is denial of law and facts from you.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #352
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    1. Citing the preamble to the Constitution is not citing actual law and you cited a few words. The preamble does not have force of law. Federalist 11 is not law, but an opinion. I have used the author of the Constitution, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers in addition to using the full clauses of the Constitution.

    2. SCOTUS does not have to adhere to the preamble since it is not law. You have to use the full clauses within the Constitution to show that the states are prohibited from secession. You have failed every time to produce the clause that prohibits the states from secession. The reason why you fail is because it doesn't exist.

    3. Only by your opinion that secession is illegal. You have an irrational fear of secession being made legal and use mental gymnastics to produce the evidence that makes secession illegal from sources outside of the Constitution.

    4. No, you're presenting rhetoric and specious reasoning to back up your claims. I am presenting the full truth that secession is legal and always has been. I have presented up full texts of laws written by various founding fathers that support my position. You have produced nothing but empty rhetoric.

    5. I have presented proof and you have ignored it or claim it's revisionism. Here's a snippet regarding secession from William Rawle's A View of the Constitution. William Rawle 1825 was a prominent constitutional lawyer and a good friend of James Madison. Madison was sent a copy of the manuscript to see if it was correct and he approved it. This book was taught in all the schools up until the War of Northern Agression.

    The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

    But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession, — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.
    Link
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 06-11-10 at 02:19 PM.

  3. #353
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    1. Citing the preamble to the Constitution is not citing actual law and you cited a few words. The preamble does not have force of law. Federalist 11 is not law, but an opinion. I have used the author of the Constitution, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers in addition to using the full clauses of the Constitution.
    If the preamble of the Constitution is irrelevant, then so is the DOI. The DOI is not law. However, both are traditions, and if you are going to use stare decisis, then you MUST use both. So choose. Are both acceptable or neither. Further, the Federalist Papers are the most used source in interpreting the Constiutation, as the discusses and explains what was contained and what was meant. They may mot be laws, but they are used to understand law and are used to validate poritions of the Constitution. Lastly, I have used the author of the Constitution, the author of the majority of the Federalist Papers, and the legal decisions of of SCOTUS. The latter, beyond anything, trumps anything you have presented.

    2. SCOTUS does not have to adhere to the preamble since it is not law. You have to use the full clauses within the Constitution to show that the states are prohibited from secession. You have failed every time to produce the clause that prohibits the states from secession. The reason why you fail is because it doesn't exist.
    SCOTUS felt that, using stare decisis, the preamble was appropriate in usage in this case, as it adheres to tradition. They found that the perpetuity of the Union was clear. You may disagree with the desision, but that doesn't change that this decision was rendered in the way that it was. Negating the "secession was not illegal" argument.

    3. Only by your opinion that secession is illegal. You have an irrational fear of secession being made legal and use mental gymnastics to produce the evidence that makes secession illegal from sources outside of the Constitution.
    I have no concerns about whehter secession is liegal or not. However, it is not, and you seem to be bent on trying to revise history. Sorry. Things didn't work out the way that you think they did. There was no "war of Northern Agression." That is revision-speak for the Civil War.

    4. No, you're presenting rhetoric and specious reasoning to back up your claims. I am presenting the full truth that secession is legal and always has been. I have presented up full texts of laws written by various founding fathers that support my position. You have produced nothing but empty rhetoric.
    I have produced texts and information from Hamilton and Madison, and a SCOTUS decision. Secession was illegal and always has been. You have produced nothing that says otherwise.

    5. I have presented proof and you have ignored it or claim it's revisionism. Here's a snippet regarding secession from William Rawle's A View of the Constitution. William Rawle 1825 was a prominent constitutional lawyer and a good friend of James Madison. Madison was sent a copy of the manuscript to see if it was correct and he approved it. This book was taught in all the schools up until the War of Northern Agression.

    Link
    It is revision. SCOTUS decided this, clearly, and founders discussed this. It was not a "war of nothern aggression". Like I said, that is revision-speak. The south seceded, illegally, and confiscated federal property. The secesion failed, and SCOTUS confirned that what was done was illegal. I know you don't like this, but it's accurate.

    And sorry, I'll take the words of Hamilton, Madison's letter to Webster, and the SCOTUS decision over Rawles. Those things trump anything you've got.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #354
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    If the preamble of the Constitution is irrelevant, then so is the DOI. The DOI is not law. However, both are traditions, and if you are going to use stare decisis, then you MUST use both. So choose. Are both acceptable or neither. Further, the Federalist Papers are the most used source in interpreting the Constiutation, as the discusses and explains what was contained and what was meant. They may mot be laws, but they are used to understand law and are used to validate poritions of the Constitution. Lastly, I have used the author of the Constitution, the author of the majority of the Federalist Papers, and the legal decisions of of SCOTUS. The latter, beyond anything, trumps anything you have presented.
    Actually, the First Congress passed the Declaration of Independence into federal law. The Federalist Papers are propaganda to pass the Constitution. If you use them then you must use the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. It's not an either/or thing. Appeal to authority logical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    SCOTUS felt that, using stare decisis, the preamble was appropriate in usage in this case, as it adheres to tradition. They found that the perpetuity of the Union was clear. You may disagree with the desision, but that doesn't change that this decision was rendered in the way that it was. Negating the "secession was not illegal" argument.
    I already stated what the court thought and the reasons why they ruled the way they did. You have not proven that the ruling was within the confines of the Constitution nor did you prove that secession was illegal. Your only card is one ruling done by a partisan court that had everything to gain by keeping the south under a military dictatorship.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I have no concerns about whehter secession is liegal or not. However, it is not, and you seem to be bent on trying to revise history. Sorry. Things didn't work out the way that you think they did. There was no "war of Northern Agression." That is revision-speak for the Civil War.
    The revision was done right after the war. Stating the full historical record is far from revising what really happened. It was the War of Northern Agression.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I have produced texts and information from Hamilton and Madison, and a SCOTUS decision. Secession was illegal and always has been. You have produced nothing that says otherwise.
    You haven't proven it with the text of the Constitution from any part of Article I Section X on what the states are prohibited from doing. You have proven nothing except for using appeals to emotion and authority logical fallacies.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    It is revision. SCOTUS decided this, clearly, and founders discussed this. It was not a "war of nothern aggression". Like I said, that is revision-speak. The south seceded, illegally, and confiscated federal property. The secesion failed, and SCOTUS confirned that what was done was illegal. I know you don't like this, but it's accurate.
    Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And sorry, I'll take the words of Hamilton, Madison's letter to Webster, and the SCOTUS decision over Rawles. Those things trump anything you've got.
    Another appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.

  5. #355
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Actually, the First Congress passed the Declaration of Independence into federal law. The Federalist Papers are propaganda to pass the Constitution. If you use them then you must use the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. It's not an either/or thing. Appeal to authority logical fallacy.
    The only law that the DOI commands is that of the original colonies to become independent for Great Britain. Other than that, it is NOT law. That's pretty basic stuff. So you are wrong #1.

    The Constitution IS law, and the preamble, which is part of it, has been used many times in court cases, as it identifies that states do NOT have the right to nullification. This is indicated in both the Legal Tender Cases, and in Bush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bdm both of which used the preamble's concept of a government over the people NOT a contract between states as was the Articles of Confederation. This, as has been established in case law, continues to indicate that secession was illegal, and that the preamble IS law and has been used by SCOTUS to determine legal precedence.

    The Federalist Papers were discussions on the Constitution and clearly identify their intent. I have no problem with the Anti-Federalist Papers. However, their thoughts on secession did not make it into the Constitution. The Federalist position did.
    So, you are wrong #2.



    I already stated what the court thought and the reasons why they ruled the way they did. You have not proven that the ruling was within the confines of the Constitution nor did you prove that secession was illegal. Your only card is one ruling done by a partisan court that had everything to gain by keeping the south under a military dictatorship.
    I have conclusively proven that secession was illegal both in past and in this thread. All you have is your displeasure of a court case... which is irrelevant. The case upheld law. Session is and was illegal. No matter how much revision you throw, you can not change those simple facts. Your denial of legal case law upholding the Constitution is shows you are wrong #3.



    The revision was done right after the war. Stating the full historical record is far from revising what really happened. It was the War of Northern Agression.
    It was a Civil War. The "war of northern aggression" is a made up revisionist term that attempts to ignore case law, legal precedence, and the historical record. So, you are wrong #4.



    You haven't proven it with the text of the Constitution from any part of Article I Section X on what the states are prohibited from doing. You have proven nothing except for using appeals to emotion and authority logical fallacies.
    I have proven, clearly, that secession is illegal, using the Constitution, the words of Hamilton and Madison, and now several court cases, including Texas v. White, The Legal Tender Cases, and ush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. All you have is an appeal to emotion and revision. And you do not know what the appeal to authority logical fallacy is, but I will explain that in a moment. Regardless, you are wrong #5.



    Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.
    You do not understand what the appeal to authority logical fallacy is. "Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area." If I had said that Michael Jordan said that secession was illegal, and tired to demonstrate that truth of that statement on his word, I would be committing that fallacy; he may be an authority on Basketball, but not on US law. SCOTUS IS the authority on US law, therefore, the fallacy does not exist in this case. That, for you, is epic fail. You may wish that SCOTUS didn't have the final say on this, but they do. Therefore, you are wrong #6.



    Another appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.
    Again, epic fail on not knowing what the appeal to authority means. Those folks and groups ARE the authority, so using then to demonstrate my position is valid and credible. You have no facts, all you have is your revision and your appeal to emotion. It must be sad for you to get beaten so badly in this.

    Btw, that made you wrong #7, quite a feat in one post.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #356
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that secession is legal and has been. I have proven that the War of Northern Agression was an illegal war under the Constitution. Declaring yourself the victor and proving it are two different things, since there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from exercising the power of secession. You are incorrect that the Constitution is a government over the people and not a contract between the states. The words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson state the opposite of what you've said and I've shown that many, many times. Only in your mind are you correct. The only revisionism that is in this thread is the one you're spouting.

  7. #357
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that secession is legal and has been. I have proven that the War of Northern Agression was an illegal war under the Constitution. Declaring yourself the victor and proving it are two different things, since there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from exercising the power of secession. You are incorrect that the Constitution is a government over the people and not a contract between the states. The words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson state the opposite of what you've said and I've shown that many, many times. Only in your mind are you correct. The only revisionism that is in this thread is the one you're spouting.

    The only things that you have proven is that you do not understand logical fallacies, and that your revisionism trumps both logic and facts in your mind. I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that secession was illegal, both via the Constitution, Constitutional law, SCOTUS decisions, and the words of Hamilton and Madison. The Constitution is NOT a contract between the states and never has been. It is a contract of government with the people. The Articles of Confederation were between the states, but the Constitution over rules that. I know that you do not like these decisions and facts, but unfortunately for you, that does not change their accuracy. You have been proven wrong, conclusively via facts and logic.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #358
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The only things that you have proven is that you do not understand logical fallacies, and that your revisionism trumps both logic and facts in your mind. I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that secession was illegal, both via the Constitution, Constitutional law, SCOTUS decisions, and the words of Hamilton and Madison. The Constitution is NOT a contract between the states and never has been. It is a contract of government with the people. The Articles of Confederation were between the states, but the Constitution over rules that. I know that you do not like these decisions and facts, but unfortunately for you, that does not change their accuracy. You have been proven wrong, conclusively via facts and logic.
    Again you present rhetoric instead of facts. James Madison wrote this in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact,". He used the word compact which references that the ratification was done via state Constitutional conventions. The National Archives and Records Administration disagrees with you on the Constitution not being a contract between the states.

    The legal definition from Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary defines compact as, "COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement. In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforeed, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Story, Const. B. 3, c. 3; Rutherf. Inst. B. 2, c. 6, 1. 2. The constitution of the United States declares that " no state shall, without the consent of congress, enter into agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." See 11 Pet: 1; 8 Wheat. 1 Bald. R. 60; 11 Pet. 185."

    Q. How were deputies to the Constitutional Convention chosen?
    A. They were appointed by the legislatures of the different States.

    Q. How can it be said that the signing of the Constitution was unanimous, when the deputies of only twelve States signed and some delegates refused to sign?
    A. The signatures attest the "Unanimous Consent of the States present." The voting was by States, and the vote of each State that of a majority of its deputies
    Source

    Article VII Clause I says, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." The Constitution is a contract between the states and always has been.

    Constitution is defined in Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary as, "CONSTITUTION,, government. The fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the, manner it is to be exercised as, the Constitution of the United States. See Story on the Constitution; Rawle on the Const.

    2. The words constitution and government (q. v.) are sometimes employed to express the same idea, the manner in which sovereignty is exercised in each state. Constitution is also the name of the instrument containing the fundamental laws of the state." So again you fail.

  9. #359
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Again you present rhetoric instead of facts. James Madison wrote this in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact,". He used the word compact which references that the ratification was done via state Constitutional conventions. The National Archives and Records Administration disagrees with you on the Constitution not being a contract between the states.

    The legal definition from Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary defines compact as, "COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement. In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforeed, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Story, Const. B. 3, c. 3; Rutherf. Inst. B. 2, c. 6, 1. 2. The constitution of the United States declares that " no state shall, without the consent of congress, enter into agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." See 11 Pet: 1; 8 Wheat. 1 Bald. R. 60; 11 Pet. 185."

    Source

    Article VII Clause I says, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." The Constitution is a contract between the states and always has been.

    Constitution is defined in Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary as, "CONSTITUTION,, government. The fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the, manner it is to be exercised as, the Constitution of the United States. See Story on the Constitution; Rawle on the Const.

    2. The words constitution and government (q. v.) are sometimes employed to express the same idea, the manner in which sovereignty is exercised in each state. Constitution is also the name of the instrument containing the fundamental laws of the state." So again you fail.
    Of course the Constitution was ratified by the states. That was the procedure that was identified. Ratification is completely irrelevant to the issue because it has nothing to do with what the Constitution represents. It is a contract with the people not with the states. You again are ignoring facts and how things have been interpretted through SCOTUS decisions. This was ruled on in the Legal Tender cases. In Knox v. Lee, Justice Strong delivering the opinion for the court, said this:

    The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over states and people.
    This affirms the intetion of the Constitution in regards to government.

    Also in Knox v. Lee, in concurrence with upholding the decision, Justice Bradley said the following:

    The Constitution of the United States established a government,and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government. In the eighth section of Article I it is declared that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof. As a government it was invested with all the attrib tes of sovereignty. It is expressly declared in Article VI that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
    This affirms the notion that the the Constitution is NOT a compact. He further destroys the notion of the Constitution being a "compact" and the idea that secession could be legal, here:

    The doctrine so long contended for that the Federal Union was a mere compact of States, and that the States, if they chose, might annul or disregard the acts of the National legislature, or might secede from the Union at their pleasure, and that the General government had no power to coerce them into submission to the Constitution, should be regarded as definitely and forever overthrown. This has been finally effected by the National power, as it had often been before, by overwhelming argument.
    The concept that secession is legal is forever overthrown by overwhelming argument.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U. S. 457 :: Volume 79 :: 1870 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

    All of this negates any of your definitions. SCOTUS has ruled on this. The Constitution is NOT a compact between states. It is a contract with the people.

    Once again, you've failed and have shown that you have nothing.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #360
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Does the term redneck refer to a culture or race?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Of course the Constitution was ratified by the states. That was the procedure that was identified. Ratification is completely irrelevant to the issue because it has nothing to do with what the Constitution represents. It is a contract with the people not with the states. You again are ignoring facts and how things have been interpretted through SCOTUS decisions. This was ruled on in the Legal Tender cases. In Knox v. Lee, Justice Strong delivering the opinion for the court, said this:

    This affirms the intetion of the Constitution in regards to government.
    And Justice Strong is contradicted by the people who worked to establish the Constitution. Sorry, but Madison outweighs Justice Story since Story was a Clay Mercantilist.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Also in Knox v. Lee, in concurrence with upholding the decision, Justice Bradley said the following:

    This affirms the notion that the the Constitution is NOT a compact. He further destroys the notion of the Constitution being a "compact" and the idea that secession could be legal, here:
    Again the Justice is wrong since Madison and the authors of the Constitution have repeatedly stated that the Constitution is a compact. Again, Founding Fathers>Justice Bradley.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The concept that secession is legal is forever overthrown by overwhelming argument.
    You haven't proven anything other than your appeals to authority of men in black robes that are using an illegal delegation of power to interprete the Constitution. I choose to use the actual authors of the document.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    All of this negates any of your definitions. SCOTUS has ruled on this. The Constitution is NOT a compact between states. It is a contract with the people.
    SCOTUS is wrong and has been wrong. That is why I use the people who actually wrote the damn thing. If you prefer to use political activist judges that's your prerogative, but I don't have to accept it. I reject your cites due to bias on the part of the justices involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Once again, you've failed and have shown that you have nothing.
    Saying I have nothing and PROVING it are two different things. We're done here because you are not here for an honest debate, but to spam your rhetoric and quasi-scholastic research as fact.
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 06-12-10 at 05:12 PM.

Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •