100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Can the President Kill You? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Interesting tid-bit since ya'll mentioned the Civil War. A. Johnson, the guy who succeeded Lincoln. Congress created a bill, once he took office; that forbid him from firing any already approved congressmen. He believed this unconstitutional, fired someone anyway, and was impeached. -.- If I recall correctly, Lincoln was with the Union, and Johnson was said to favor the south. Don't quote me on the last part though. Basically comes down to Congress doing wtf ever it wants whenever it wants. How many years? Not much has changed. but we continue to think the President has the most 'power'....... That' why I hate "politics" and I'm not as narrow-minded to just simply hate whomever the current president is and pass all the blame on him. That's why I consider the President just a figurehead. The only true requirements for him is being able to speak to foreign dikkheads, oops, I mean figureheads. It's like this: President wants to pass a bill, congress rejects; end of sorry (for the most part unless he refiles it). Congress wants a bill passed, President vetoes it, congress can override the veto. (Last I checked). Thus, a figurehead. pretty much my thoughts that he or she understand foreign policy and affairs, and be adequately professional and educated to sit with the leaders of other nations and not make us look like doofuses,,,, are the two ABSOLUTES,,,most other things are values that I hope they share with me , and of course I consider how likely the congress is to agree with them and act upon those values in the laws they pass,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't the killing of southern soldiers during the civil war an act of killing U.S. citizens who posed a danger to the country? the confederates states seceded the union - read the articles of war - civil rights are pretty much suspended 9/11 was an act of war - What's the difference between states seceding from the union and a person who joins a group that is actively involved in doing harm to the same union? not sure - I'm not that well schooled in the legal technicalities. but the southern secession was a formal document - with some kind of process - The Articles of the Confederation or something like that - I'd have to look it up tho as far as content and exactly how it was presented to the union. IMO it was mostly an economic decision - hatred of the carpetbaggers....anyway, it was not really a subversive activity - it was pretty out in the open...clearly not sure the confederate states had any real desire or agenda to harm the union either as far as those states remaining in the union - they just wanted to run their own show - that was more their agenda than harmimg the union that being, of course, a matter of perception tho both of your descriptions would be considered treasonous jmho The south fired the first shot, Fort Sumter. Carpetbaggers came after the war was over during the restitution. Can't get much more subversive than sending over an Army. Most of the beginning of the war was the north fighting off invasions by the south. yes the carpetbaggers were later - sorry - I was thinking in more general terms of the industrialized north treasonous yes, subversive - not in my opinon - the south took what IT considered open legal actions with its articles - subversive to me implies something "hidden" - a matter of imterpretation perhaps the confederacy was definitely treasonous to the union but it was not subversive in the sense that it was a person joining a secret society or what ever (as u described) - they were pretty much out in the open with a states rights agenda and a declaration that they drafted - any less legal than our own declaration of independence in the eyes of king georgie? so much is a matter of interpretation. It was the union that fought to preserve the union. Had Lincoln permitted the Confederacy there'd have been no war by that time who fired the first shot was not that telling - Lincoln was not about to permit secession |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't the killing of southern soldiers during the civil war an act of killing U.S. citizens who posed a danger to the country? the confederates states seceded the union - read the articles of war - civil rights are pretty much suspended 9/11 was an act of war - What's the difference between states seceding from the union and a person who joins a group that is actively involved in doing harm to the same union? the one thing they do have in common in context of the original question though is that both are treasonous - I'd even argue that confederate soldiers at the time were no longer US citizens to make that part of the comparison moot |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
motowndowntown
on
Sat 03/10/12 07:22 PM
|
|
Wasn't the killing of southern soldiers during the civil war an act of killing U.S. citizens who posed a danger to the country? the confederates states seceded the union - read the articles of war - civil rights are pretty much suspended 9/11 was an act of war - What's the difference between states seceding from the union and a person who joins a group that is actively involved in doing harm to the same union? the one thing they do have in common in context of the original question though is that both are treasonous - I'd even argue that confederate soldiers at the time were no longer US citizens to make that part of the comparison moot Doesn't a person in effect forfeit his citizenship if he openly takes up arms against a government? sub·ver·sive [suhb-vur-siv] Show IPA adjective 1. Also, sub·ver·sion·ar·y [suhb-vur-zhuh-ner-ee, -shuh-] Show IPA. tending to subvert or advocating subversion, especially in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government. noun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't the killing of southern soldiers during the civil war an act of killing U.S. citizens who posed a danger to the country? the confederates states seceded the union - read the articles of war - civil rights are pretty much suspended 9/11 was an act of war - What's the difference between states seceding from the union and a person who joins a group that is actively involved in doing harm to the same union? the one thing they do have in common in context of the original question though is that both are treasonous - I'd even argue that confederate soldiers at the time were no longer US citizens to make that part of the comparison moot Doesn't a person in effect forfeit his citizenship if he openly takes up arms against a government? sub·ver·sive [suhb-vur-siv] Show IPA adjective 1. Also, sub·ver·sion·ar·y [suhb-vur-zhuh-ner-ee, -shuh-] Show IPA. tending to subvert or advocating subversion, especially in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government. noun first - yes - I imagine they suspend their civil rights indeed second I do not care about dictionary defintions - in truth I am in that contest subversive  in context -I will stand by my own interpretation -
The south wanted to secede - not take over or destroy the right of the northern & western states to have their union thank you for proving my point 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AdventureBegins
on
Sat 03/10/12 08:32 PM
|
|
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process if it states this,, what is the 'due process' that takes soldiers lives in war? its not judicial is it? The 5th applies to US citizens. Foreign soldiers do not have this right. However, the killing of civilians and "terrorists" (without letters of marque and reprisal) are unconstitutional, criminal, and immoral. Don't expect any government official to be convicted, though. (after all, a single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic) The double standard that exists for State actors will likely exist till States cease to exist. the 5th applies to all mankind. i.e we hold these truths to be self-evident.... If it is so for US... It must also be self-evident that it applies also to those in other countries. They are no less 'men' than I. Edit** 'due process'' in re soldiers and war... Congress must find that an opponent has or will cause great damage to US in such a way as to require War to regress greivances. By declaring a 'state of war' after (one hopes) MUCH consideration and soul searching Congress performs the 'due process' necessary for Nations. When a Nation is at war an international agreement applies to the necessary force required to win. (War is such a stupid way to address greivances) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Carpetbaggers came after the war was over during the restitution. "
Just the ones carrying the signature 'carpetbag'... However 'carpetbaggers' in Congress were choking off the 'GDP' of the Southern States by 'legal' means in the time before the 'war'. (Much like Brother Jackal is in Congress now with paper,gold and sweet lies). If it had not been for the perception of the People of the US of a need to free the slaves the war would have been fought mostly in the courts. i.e the War started as an economic battle but it was finished for a Right Cause. |
|
|
|
|
