- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,721
- Reaction score
- 51,789
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
First of all, murder and arson are not charges that can be brought up against a state, this is the first logical fallacy. Second, murder and arson being individual charges can be brought up against and individual through state laws and due process. As well the Federal government does have laws against individuals destroying federal property or committing murder against federal employees or within federal properties and that is perfectly legal, it falls under the defense clause. That is your second logical fallacy. Third, your appeal to the court. A law cannot be declared ex post facto. If you don't know what this means an american court cannot retroactively apply punishment in the U.S. for actions committed before a law or judgement was passed. In other words the U.S. could not declare that a legal act post war was illegal and that decision could not stand. As a matter of fact there are STILL state secession discussions. That is your final logical fallacy, appeal to authority can not stand on it's own, especially considering the authority in question tends to reverse itself on occasion.
Your first point: You said that if it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. That means that they can't prosecute people in federal courts for said crimes, and since the Tenth Amendment allows states to do whatever they want, then if said state doesn't prosecute them, murder and arson could be legal. Second, if we allow people to form their own versions of what's constitutionally valid, then people could start having lynch mobs again and call that "due process," thus rendering your Fourteenth Amendment argument moot. (You Confederate sympathizers should be very, very careful how you use that amendment in your arguments, by the way.) Third, you try to accuse me of a fallacy while making one of your own. You (plural) have repeatedly claimed that secession is legal simply because the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it.
What you (plural) don't want to admit is that not only did Texas v. White explicitly rule that secession was, is, and will always be a violation of the law, it also ruled that legally it wasn't even legitimate. Secession was absolutely void, meaning that strictly from a legal point-of-view, it never happened in the first place. Only revisionists such as yourself would claim otherwise.
The only people attempting deflection are those trying to maintain that the north was 100% correct. The facts have been presented and shrugged off by people who don't want to admit that maybe they didn't get the whole story on the Civil War. But if you want to maintain your stance.....whatev.
Nice strawman. I never said that the United States (we should stop calling it the Union already. That's an outdated term.) never did anything wrong. Hell, while they were fending off the Confederacy, they were oppressing the Natives out west. Fighting for liberty on one front, fighting against it on another.
Ah yes. More simplifying. Slavery was a sub-issue and the last straw, many writings from the north of the time even say that abolition was a sub-issue to their desire of maintaining the Union. So we can retire that argument.
You lie. Slavery was THE core issue. "States rights" was nothing more than an expedient catchphrase designed to defend an inherently racist and oppressive institution. Again, you revisionists make comments such as these because you want people to take their eyes off that fact.
When did that happen?
Already answered multiple times. Texas v. White.
Why do ya'll insist on labeling those who don't buy into your PC revised version of history, "Confederate sympathizers", or, "slavery apologists"?
Get the plank out of your eye before you try to get the speck out of ours.
Laws can and do exist outside of the Constitution, and in the case of murder and arson the State is not only not allowed to deprive anybody of life liberty or property, but lawmakers have made laws that make average citizens depriving others of life liberty or property illegal.
But that's the federal government that you're talking about. States can do just about anything they want, because the Tenth Amendment says so. And anything the federal government does to stop that is a government takeover.
Slavery was the issue that brought up States Rights... so the real issue was actually: States vs Federal Rights.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
You lie. Don't direct us away from the real issue here.
Here's the deal. A symbol can be different for different people.
The flag most certainly has meant racism, treason, slavery etc. to people in history - both in the Civil War era and more recent times. One can consider a symbol of something else, if you want. But it's been hijacked by the racists (much like the Nazis hijacked the swastika) and now you use it at your peril. A new symbol might be a good idea.
Totally agree.