View single post by ThomasWashington
 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 08:17 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Posts: 30

  back to top

HankC wrote: ThomasWashington wrote:  How does one 'constructively violate' a law? Legally, one is either in violation or not.

And construction is one way to violate it, through acts which effectively violate the law through indirect means.

This rubbish means nothing. 


You've never heard of "plausible deniablity?" Lincoln INVENTED it-- or at least, he sure did steal the patent.

How does one violate a law through an act of omission?

By deliberately refraining from a duty that the law requires.
What 'duty' did Dred Scott require? Other than to obey it?Isn't that enough?Again, Dred Scott *was* the law. There is no need for more laws to enforce an existing law. What are examples where Republicans 'passed laws which violated it'?

Administrative decisions and regulations, by which federal executive officials refused to obey Dred Scott by refusing to protect slavery in the territories, while continuing to prosecute and harass slave-owners  in the territories under existing federal laws that prohibited slavery there--  while state officials did likewise against those travelling with their slaves through free states, prosecuting and harassing them under state laws, while also refusing to protect them.

 This was a clear violation of habeas corpus, by which the state cannot arrest or detain a person without just cause-- and Dred Scott removed any such cause, as per the fundamental premise of judicial review over any law.
It also violated the right to due legal process.

Their main purpose was not even abolition, but was both simply to pander to abolitionists for their votes, while also keeping the territories free of slaves in order to admit new Free states into the Union-- while illegally blocking admision of new slave-states.

This was to gain congressional hegemony, in order to impose unfair, punitive and illegal taxation on the Southern states in a clear deliberate and unconstitutional scheme of wealth-redistribution-- as was the wont of the Republicans, particularly the former Whigs (of which Lincoln was 2nd in command under Henry Clay-- perhaps literally :P.

This scheme is made clear in Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, when he states the following:

Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities... A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

 Note the dual-example of slavery in the territories:  while Lincoln was generally saying that Congress was the judge of its own powers, he was doing so with particularity on this one issue.

Also, now note his statement "I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court;" and compare this back to Lincoln's original challenge to the South in his 1856 Fremont campaign-speech, where he stated the following:

I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I do not ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are the disunionists--you or we?
So this "some" he mentioned, was in reference to himself and the Republican Party.

Thus as you can see, all of Lincoln's words were obviously written in "rubber ink."
He not only thumbs his nose at his promise AND at  Dred Scott, but he disclaims the entire judicial branch as anything other than simply trial and appeals-courts, essentially flushing the judicial branch's REAL power of Constitutional review and habeas corpus down the Lincoln Tunnel... with Lincoln even issuing an arrest-warrant for Chief Justice Taney when he crossed Big Ape's path. Basically, he effectively usurped the entire judicial authority.

Likewise, he usurped congressional authority during their absence-- and since they were his party, it made no difference since they backed him 100% on their return, after he got the war rolling-- along with the suspension of habeas corpus, so that the ol' Leviathan Juggernaut could just run right over and crush any pesky "Free Speech" idealists who got in their way... meanwhile the lapdog media got a golden Press Pass to become America's version of "Pravda."

Sound familiar? It should-- it was the modus operandi for all socialist dictatorships that followed in his wake during the 20th century-- including Wilson and FDR.

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 06:46 pm by ThomasWashington

 Close Window