• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY

Master PO said:
does not matter, the 3 laws passed are clear the meaning is the same.
Click to expand...
Just because you cannot use grammar correctly does not also give you license to change the argument or to purposely ignore sections of the 1807 act, 332 inherently describes a form of insurrection the POTUS can act against.....since the 1807 act is expressly describing all forms of insurrection the POTUS can act against. You don't get to say everything EXCEPT sec 332 is describing what a POTUS can do against forms of insurrection.
 
Master PO said:
:lamo, i see you not talking today so loudly about your later postings
Click to expand...

Dude, you have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.

I will grant you, it's funny as hell watching you twist into more logic holes and display your utter inability to even comprehend what you yourself are saying, so please carry on.

I always like a good laugh.
 
Paperview said:
Dude, you have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.

I will grant you, it's funny as hell watching you twist into more logic holes and display your utter inability to even comprehend what you yourself are saying, so please carry on.

I always like a good laugh.
Click to expand...
its nice, to see you put up a front to make yourself feel better about your errors :2razz:
 
Master PO said:
you too, nice ploy to make yourself feel better......:2wave:
Click to expand...
I feel better only in the confirmation that I am not the only one that notices your various rhetorical "ploys".

You going to counter #253, or are you calling it a day?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I feel better only in the confirmation that I am not the only one that notices your various rhetorical "ploys".

You going to counter #253, or are you calling it a day?
Click to expand...

i already have countered it, by posting the meanings of 3 laws, and each time the law passed the meaning was the same .

you really showed your hand, when you had nothing and tried to post from 1863, and when that didn't work you had to come up with a new ploy to try ,which you are in that mood now.
 
Master PO said:
i already have countered it, by posting the meanings of 3 laws, and each time the law passed the meaning was the same .

you really showed your hand, when you had nothing and tried to post from 1863, and when that didn't work you had to go up with a new ploy to try ,which you are in that mood now.
Click to expand...
Lets get this straight right here, right now, are you seriously going to argue that section 332 of the Insurrection Act of 1807 does NOT describe what actions a POTUS may take in cases of insurrection against federal authority?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Lets get this straight right here, right now, are you seriously going to argue that section 332 of the Insurrection Act of 1807 does NOT describe what actions a POTUS may take in cases of insurrection against federal authority?
Click to expand...

i am stating what an insurrection is as stated by the 1792 1795 and 1807 acts, and the definition is the same for all three, it involves the takeover of state government inside of a states, not against the federal government.
 
Master PO said:
1807 acts, and the definition is the same for all three, it involves the takeover of state government inside of a states, not against the federal government.
Click to expand...
The 1807 act does describe actions the POTUS can take in countering those acting against the authority of federal law/government.



332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

QED
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
The 1807 act does describe actions the POTUS can take in countering those acting against the authority of federal law/government.



332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

QED
Click to expand...

the 3 laws are almost the same, expect for minor difference.

1792 law requires a judge and a proclamation, before the president can make a move

1795 removes the judge part, and allows the president to make a proclamation after he has moved.

the 1807 simply is a supplement to the 1795 which allows federal troops to be brought into the picture.

all 3 laws state clearly what an insurrection is and it always concerns inside of a state, that meaning never changes
 
Master PO said:
it always concerns inside of a state
Click to expand...
Moving the goal post again, you just said "not against the federal government" which it clearly does, now yer arguing, ambiguously, that it "concerns inside of states". Since the topic is about what is happening "inside a state", ie, actions against federal authority, you still lose. The point was actions against federal authority within the US....er...UNITED STATES.

Frigging hurr durr.

This wasn't a discussion about actors beyond our shores.....derp
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Moving the goal post again, you just said "not against the federal government" which it clearly does, now yer arguing, ambiguously, that it "concerns inside of states". Since the topic is about what is happening "inside a state", ie, actions against federal authority, you still lose. The point was actions against federal authority within the US....er...UNITED STATES.

Frigging hurr durr.
Click to expand...

no where will you see insurrection against the federal government, it "states" inside of states this is clear in all 3 laws passed.
 
Master PO said:
no where will you see insurrection against the federal government
Click to expand...

332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Click to expand...

you seem to think that if there is unlawful obstructions, everything is an insurrection.
 
Master PO said:
you seem to think that if there is unlawful obstructions, everything is an insurrection.
Click to expand...
Oh cataract sufferer, Lincoln did not have the US Tuna Fish Sandwich Recipe of 1789 amended, he had the 1807 Insurrection Act amended.

Good grief.
 
Master PO said:
are you having problems since you are not staying on subject?
Click to expand...
What part of the 1807 Insurrection Act am I not "staying on"? It seems you are doing everything to ignore sec 332.
 
Master PO said:
why are you ignoring 331?
Click to expand...
Because it was not what Lincoln used, it was not what Lincoln had amended into the Insurrection Act of 1807. How many times will this have to be repeated before it sinks in. He had the Insurrection Act amended to allow him to call both fed and militia troops in the case of insurrection against FEDERAL LAW/AUTHORITY. Again, it was not inserted into the National Tuna Fish Recipe, it was an amendment to the 1807 Insurrection Act.

Ketchup, yea tomato.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Because it was not what Lincoln used, it was not what Lincoln had amended into the Insurrection Act of 1807. How many times will this have to be repeated before it sinks in. He had the Insurrection Act amended to allow him to call both fed and militia troops in the case of insurrection against FEDERAL LAW/AUTHORITY. Again, it was not inserted into the National Tuna Fish Recipe, it was an amendment to the 1807 Insurrection Act.

Ketchup, yea tomato.
Click to expand...

please show where insurrection is defined as against the federal government/united states before the war, if you can i will come over to your side and admit wrong.

i already know it was redefined after the war began as you already showed from 1863
 
Master PO said:
please show where insurrection is defined as against the federal government/united states before the war, if you can i will come over to your side and admit wrong.

i already know it was redefined after the war began as you already showed from 1863
Click to expand...
dood....332....was....in....place....before.....the....war. "Insurrection" was not "redefined" after the war, I have already said that the term "insurgent" was used to describe colonialists....long before the CW. It is a term of art, and 332 described it as actions against federal authority.

Yer argument is done, is is becoming nothing more than a crumbling piece of carbon falling between the grates and into the greasy dregs.

I'm done here now, you are going over the same ground already covered.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
dood....332....was....in....place....before.....the....war. "Insurrection" was not "redefined" after the war, I have already said that the term "insurgent" was used to describe colonialists....long before the CW. It is a term of art, and 332 described it as actions against federal authority.

Yer argument is done, is is becoming nothing more than a crumbling piece of carbon falling between the grates and into the greasy dregs.

I'm done here now, you are going over the same ground already covered.
Click to expand...



the president is not given authority to use militia concerning insurrection, without state approval, until AFTER the civil war, per title 10 333

if it was an insurrsection as you say, then lincoln's actions were illegal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom