It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants

Religions > Atheism > It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Sound of Trumpet"
Date:	27 Oct 2006 07:27:53 PM
Object:	It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52638
It's time for rebellion against judicial tyrants
Posted: October 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
If Gov. Jon Corzine wished to make himself a hero to Middle America,
the opportunity is at hand. All he need do is inform the New Jersey
Supreme Court he will neither submit nor sign the law it has ordered
enacted - to put homosexual unions on a par with marriage.
At root, what that 4-3 decision ordering the Legislature to enact a new
law sanctioning civil unions or gay marriage is about is: Who governs
New Jersey? It is about who decides what law shall be - elected
legislators or judges appointed for life.
In our War of Independence, in which New Jersey was overrun repeatedly
by British troops, at issue was whether George III and a Parliament
sitting in London, in which Americans had no voice, would govern us, or
whether we would rule ourselves. From April 1775 to Yorktown in 1781,
Americans fought and died to end that rule of kings - only to have
their meek and timid heirs submit to a rule of judges.
Let us go back to the era of Earl Warren that began in 1954 and
consider what, in the span of a half-century, U.S. judges and Supreme
Court justices, abetted by state jurists, have done to America.
God, Bible study, prayer and the Ten Commandments have been ordered out
of all public schools and the public square of a nation that once
proudly boasted of itself as God's country. Pornography has been
declared protected by the First Amendment. Cities have been ripped
apart, as judges have ordered students, based on color alone, bussed
across crime-ridden cities to achieve an artificial racial balance.
Abortion, homosexual sodomy and naked dancing in public bars have been
declared to be new constitutional rights.
Of all these outrages and idiocies, one thing may be said: No
legislature, no executive at the state or federal level would have
survived imposing such measures upon us. They would have been hurled
from office at the next election. When homosexual marriage was put on
the ballot in 13 states in 2004, it was routed in every one by
landslides as great as 6 to 1. America rejects it.
Upon what ground, then, does the New Jersey Supreme Court stand to
order an elected legislature to enact a law the people do not want?
Answer: The court said that to deny homosexuals the same rights as
married couples is to treat them unequally, and this violates the
Constitution of New Jersey: "Although we cannot find that a fundamental
right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal
dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can
no longer be tolerated under our state constitution."
The operative words here are "no longer be tolerated." What the court
is saying is that, though there is no right to same-sex marriage in New
Jersey, and the state has never voted the rights and benefits to
homosexuals it has for married couples, we, the judges in our wisdom,
declare this to be intolerable.
Therefore, you, the legislators of New Jersey, and you, Gov. Corzine,
are ordered to change the laws of New Jersey to conform to our idea of
equality. A tiny minority of judges in America now dictates to the
Great Silent Majority.
This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts in 2003. And had Gov.
Romney told the Massachusetts Supreme Court that its 4-3 decision had
no constitutional basis, and that he and the Legislature had no
intention of obeying its order, Mitt Romney would be the front-runner
for the Republican nomination in 2008.
When Shay's Rebellion of farmers broke out in Massachusetts in 1786,
Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "I hold it that a little
rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the
political world as storms in the physical." It is time for a little
rebellion in New Jersey, and America. For what is taking place, what
has taken place, is a bloodless coup by judges who have arrogated to
themselves the powers of legislatures to make laws and remake society
in their own image - without recourse to referenda or free elections.
When judges in New Jersey can order legislators to write new laws that
conform to their ideology, laws the people have not only not demanded,
but viscerally and violently oppose, we have ceased to be a free
country or a democratic republic.
"Who rules?" That is what is at issue in New Jersey.
For 50 years, this nation permitted the Warren Court, and its
successors and imitators in the state courts, to create a body of
judge-made law that has altered the character of our country, very much
for the worse.
Again and again, the people have voted for candidates for president,
Congress and governor who promised to bring down the curtain on this
half-century of judicial tyranny. But still the judges persist in
issuing orders that have no basis either in precedent or in the written
constitutions they have sworn to defend.
Such judges need to be defied and they need to be impeached. Not obeyed.
.

User: "Crusader Rabbit"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 02:07:24 PM

In article <1161995273.770888.35220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52638

It's time for rebellion against judicial tyrants

Fortunately for Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Life,
the great majority of Americans don't want politicians to have
any authority over judges.
The Bush administration has shown Americans what the religious
right does when given power, and Americans are overwhelmingly
rejecting the Bush administration.
2006 is a very bad year for the neocons.
(CNN) -- Despite politicians' complaints about judges having too
much power, two-thirds of Americans do not believe elected
officials should have more control over federal judges,
according to a new CNN poll released Saturday.
Sixty-seven percent of 1,013 people surveyed by Opinion Research
Corp. on behalf of CNN said federal judges -- and the decisions
they make -- should not be subject to more control.
http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/activist.judges/index.html
.

User: "Strabo"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 05:31:58 PM

Crusader Rabbit wrote:

In article <1161995273.770888.35220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52638

It's time for rebellion against judicial tyrants

The Neocons are a post WWII nationalist socialist cliche.
They're in it for the long haul. They anticipated the
obvious backlash and are far from done. They have billions
of dollars at hand and know where all the bodies are buried.
Watch as the Israeli lobby works on Republicans and
Democrats. They've already gotten to Pelosi.

(CNN) -- Despite politicians' complaints about judges having too
much power, two-thirds of Americans do not believe elected
officials should have more control over federal judges,
according to a new CNN poll released Saturday.

Sixty-seven percent of 1,013 people surveyed by Opinion Research
Corp. on behalf of CNN said federal judges -- and the decisions
they make -- should not be subject to more control.

http://us.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/activist.judges/index.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	27 Oct 2006 07:56:03 PM

In article <1161995273.770888.35220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> writes:

At root, the problem is that whenever a judge makes a constitutionally-
based ruling which the neo-cons dislike, they whine "activist judges".
-- cary
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	29 Oct 2006 11:17:33 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

At root, the problem is that whenever a judge makes
a constitutionally- based ruling which the neo-cons
dislike, they whine "activist judges".

Got a problem with that?
Look, you obviously don't want to remake America into
the Iran of the West. That makes you a liberty loving
traitor.
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 11:57:16 AM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:56:03 +0000 (UTC),

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <1161995273.770888.35220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> writes:

At root, the problem is that whenever a judge makes a constitutionally-
based ruling which the neo-cons dislike, they whine "activist judges".

-- cary

Odd...I recall the screaming, rending of garments and the gnashing of
teeth by the Left, when a court declared the 2nd Amendment an
Individual Right..and when the Federal Assault Weapons ban was allowed
to sunset..the outcry from the Left was deafening.
Be careful of what you critique, boychik, your ox is gonna get Gored
(snicker) by the courts in the near future..and you may want to lay in a
supply of crying towels.
Btw...I take it you approved of Cruckshank? Reaffirming that slavery was
legal and they had no rights.
Gunner Asch
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.

User: "Andrew F. Heil"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	05 Nov 2006 07:33:34 PM

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:56:03 +0000 (UTC),

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <1161995273.770888.35220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> writes:

At root, the problem is that whenever a judge makes a constitutionally-
based ruling which the neo-cons dislike, they whine "activist judges".

-- cary

Odd...I recall the screaming, rending of garments and the gnashing of
teeth by the Left, when a court declared the 2nd Amendment an
Individual Right..

I don't recall that case. Not surprising - courts have been generally
loathe to address the Second Amendment, and what few rulings there are
tend to be all over the case. But I am curious as to your reference.
I assume it was recent. If it was many decades ago I'm a bit mystified
as to how the contemporary reactions to it bear any relevance to
comparative reactions by others to judicial decisions in the 21st
Century.
Care to cite the decision? All I need is the name and the year - the
court would be nice but is not necessary - and I will look it up from
there myself. I would be delighted if there was such a ruling of
recent vintage.

and when the Federal Assault Weapons ban was allowed to sunset..
the outcry from the Left was deafening.

I recall some protests from the left - I wasn't deafened, however. I
also recall President Bush's repeated vow that he supported both the
ban and its renewal, though again, I wasn't defeaned by it. The
comparison of the protest over the lack of action by a legislative body
to the incessant cry of "Judicial activism!" is a bit curious, however.
One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Be careful of what you critique, boychik, your ox is gonna get Gored
(snicker) by the courts in the near future..and you may want to lay in a
supply of crying towels.

Btw...I take it you approved of Cruckshank? Reaffirming that slavery was
legal and they had no rights.

Cruckshank? Never heard of it. Maybe you mean Cruikshank. As in
United States v. Cruikshank (1876). The date alone should tell you
that you are confused if you really think that case "reaffirmed that
slavery was legal". Actually, part of what Cruikshank held was that
the Second Amendment - as with the rest of the Bill of Rights - was
only a curb on the federal government and that subsidiary levels of
government were not bound by it. Naturally enough; the United States
Supreme Court had not come up with the Doctrine of Incorporation - one
of the most judicially active of decisions it has ever issued - which
made all levels of government bound by the restrictions enunciated
within the Bill of Rights.
For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly support the blatant judicial
activism of the Doctrine of Incorporation. And from what I've been
able to determine, the vast majority of those who regularly whine and
complain about 'judicial activism' do as well. Offhand, Ed Meese and
maybe Clarence Thomas are the only notable exceptions to this that I
can think of.
.

User: "Jeff McCann"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	05 Nov 2006 07:47:24 PM

"Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162776814.606766.246290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
[snip] Actually, part of what Cruikshank held was that

the Second Amendment - as with the rest of the Bill of Rights - was
only a curb on the federal government and that subsidiary levels of
government were not bound by it. [snip]

Ahem, we respectfully object to being described as "subsidiary levels of
government."
Signed,
The individual Sovereign States composing the United States of America.
.

User: "RadicalModerate"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	05 Nov 2006 10:57:46 PM

In misc.survivalism Jeff McCann <NoSpam@nothanks.org> wrote:

Ahem, we respectfully object to being described as "subsidiary levels of
government."
Signed,
The individual Sovereign States composing the United States of America.

When the 14th Amendment is repealed or SCOTUS reverses the
Incorporation Doctrine, the States will become sovereign again.
I doubt either will happen in our lifetimes.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: address IS Valid.
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	06 Nov 2006 03:32:18 AM

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:47:24 -0600, "Jeff McCann" <NoSpam@NoThanks.org>
wrote:

"Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162776814.606766.246290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
[snip] Actually, part of what Cruikshank held was that

the Second Amendment - as with the rest of the Bill of Rights - was
only a curb on the federal government and that subsidiary levels of
government were not bound by it. [snip]

Ahem, we respectfully object to being described as "subsidiary levels of
government."

Signed,
The individual Sovereign States composing the United States of America.

Indeed. The Libs tend to believe revisionist history taught by other
libs.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	06 Nov 2006 03:31:20 AM

On 5 Nov 2006 17:33:34 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Odd...I recall the screaming, rending of garments and the gnashing of
teeth by the Left, when a court declared the 2nd Amendment an
Individual Right..

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/Emerson5thSAF.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701a.htm
Then there are the other pro individual rights, 35+ decisions by the
Supreme Court
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Gunner Asch
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.

User: "Andrew F. Heil"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	06 Nov 2006 09:14:22 AM

Gunner wrote:

On 5 Nov 2006 17:33:34 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Odd...I recall the screaming, rending of garments and the gnashing of
teeth by the Left, when a court declared the 2nd Amendment an
Individual Right..

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/Emerson5thSAF.htm

Oh, I expcted that you were referring to Emerson, the case in which the
U.S. 5th Circuit held that individuals possess a right to bear arms ...
and which promptly held that the federal gun control law in question
was perfectly Constitutional.
My hope - not much of one, mind you - was that you knew of something
better than the enunciation of individual rights immediately followed
by an underscoring of the restrictions in Miller and an upholding of
the power of the federal government to imprison a man with a clean
criminal record who had never been declared incompetent simply for the
possession of a firearm to 30 months in federal prison. Further, even
within those limitations Emerson remains controlling law in ...
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, where less than 10% of the U.S.
population dwells. As usual, the high court continued its policy of
addressing the Second Amendment as little as possible - which is
typically not to address it at all.
Yes, I do recall Emerson, though I recall no screaming, rending or
gnashing when the decision came down. Indeed, a quick glance back
through Google not only fails to find the hysterical reaction you claim
occurred but actually finds *applause* for the decision from ... the
Violence Policy Center. I'll leave you to guess their stand on gun
control.
I would welcome the sort of broad ruling you suggest, when a
description of said individual rights is then actually followed in
practice by a controlling decision that upholds them. But I won't hold
my breath.
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	06 Nov 2006 02:07:52 PM

On 6 Nov 2006 07:14:22 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On 5 Nov 2006 17:33:34 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Odd...I recall the screaming, rending of garments and the gnashing of
teeth by the Left, when a court declared the 2nd Amendment an
Individual Right..

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/Emerson5thSAF.htm

Oh, I expcted that you were referring to Emerson, the case in which the
U.S. 5th Circuit held that individuals possess a right to bear arms ...
and which promptly held that the federal gun control law in question
was perfectly Constitutional.

My hope - not much of one, mind you - was that you knew of something
better than the enunciation of individual rights immediately followed
by an underscoring of the restrictions in Miller and an upholding of
the power of the federal government to imprison a man with a clean
criminal record who had never been declared incompetent simply for the
possession of a firearm to 30 months in federal prison. Further, even
within those limitations Emerson remains controlling law in ...
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, where less than 10% of the U.S.
population dwells. As usual, the high court continued its policy of
addressing the Second Amendment as little as possible - which is
typically not to address it at all.

Yes, I do recall Emerson, though I recall no screaming, rending or
gnashing when the decision came down. Indeed, a quick glance back
through Google not only fails to find the hysterical reaction you claim
occurred but actually finds *applause* for the decision from ... the
Violence Policy Center. I'll leave you to guess their stand on gun
control.

Right. They whole heartedly approved of the entire decision. Which is
why Brady went nuts against it..
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2718
And VPC went on a highspeed wobble and spun it like a top..
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2691
"Today the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the sweeping
arguments of the gun lobby that the Second Amendment guarantees domestic
abusers an individual right to possess a gun."
Fascinating that you should also spin so badly.....

I would welcome the sort of broad ruling you suggest, when a
description of said individual rights is then actually followed in
practice by a controlling decision that upholds them. But I won't hold
my breath.

odd that you would snip the rest of the cites off. Was there some reason
you snipped off the link to the 35 other SCOTUS decisions..pro 2nd Am
ones?
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm
Gunner Asch
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 10:45:43 AM

In article <dn27k2d2vmetnq69ber6hrraski3aum1ib@4ax.com>

writes:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:56:03 +0000 (UTC),

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <1161995273.770888.35220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@myway.com> writes:

At root, the problem is that whenever a judge makes a constitutionally-
based ruling which the neo-cons dislike, they whine "activist judges".

-- cary

Odd...I don't recall liberals screaming about "activist judges" in
this case. But I'd be quite happy to look at some cites, if you have any.
-- cary
.

User: "Douglas Berry"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 04:47:50 PM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said
the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...

And how many of the wailing left caled for the overthrow of the
Republic?

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution. We needed to
amend the Constitution to get rid of the legal basis for chattel
slavery.
See? Checks and balances.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 06:39:48 PM

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lj7k29bahjj18n90tbg7td3c70u6mlomj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said

Btw...I take it you approved of Cruckshank? Reaffirming that slavery was
legal and they had no rights.

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution

The Racist History of the Democratic Party
Wayne Perryman, an inner city minister in Seattle and the author of
Unfounded Loyalty, in an editorial circulating on the Internet (Feb. 2004):
Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception.
That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party
and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the
Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.
History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed
and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African
Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the
formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of
1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific
laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was
designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows
that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows
laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal
level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.
History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish
slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the
Democratic Party.
Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States,
but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the
Democrats and the Republicans over slavery. The Democrats gave their lives
to expand it, Republican gave their lives to ban it.
During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed
that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations
like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The
Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan
Activities. Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of
the Democratic Party.
History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered
thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities
occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood
District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.
After the Civil War, Democrats murdered several hundred black elected
officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All
of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the
Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a
black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.
History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that
introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and
a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white
Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in
Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party.
History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as
Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the
traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many
of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.
Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the
passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were
introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all
African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to
vote.
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the
following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights
for African Americans:
Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott
Decision. The decision classified Blacks and property rather than people. It
was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought
about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of
Education.
At the turn of the century (1900), Southern Democrats continued to oppress
African Americans by placing thousands in hard-core prison labor camps.
According to most historians, the prison camps were far worst than slavery.
The prisoners were required to work from 10-14 hours a day, six to seven
days a week in temperatures that exceeded 100 degrees and in temperatures
that fell well below zero. The camps provided free labor for building
railroads, mining coal-mines and for draining snake and alligator invested
swamps and rivers. Blacks were transported from one project to another in
rolling cages similar to the ones used to transfer circus animals. One
fourth of the prison populations were children ages 6 to 18. Young Cy
Williams age 12, was sentenced to 20 years for stealing a horse that he was
too small to ride. Eight-year old Will Evans was sentenced to 2 years of
hard labor for taking some change from a store counter and six-year old Mary
Gay was sentenced to 30 days for taking a hat. While authorities sent whites
to jail for the same offenses, they sent blacks to the prison camps with
much longer sentences. Thousands died from malaria, frost bites, heat
strokes, shackle poisoning, others were buried alive in collapsing mines, or
blown to pieces in tunnel explosions, and still others drowned in swamps or
were beaten and shot to death. Every southern black citizen was a potential
prisoner for any alleged small offense, including violating evening curfews.
Through the prison camp system, southern owners of railroads, mines and
farms had an unlimited source of free labor. The black prisoners played a
major role the South's economic development. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal
Justice Initiative, said, in his opinion, "the prison camps were a new form
of slavery, but far more inhumane."
History reveals that it was three white persons that opposed the Democrat's
racist practices who started the NAACP.
Dr. Martin Luther King, several Civil Rights leaders and many historians
reported that during the first two years of his administration, President
John F. Kennedy ignored Dr. King's request for Civil Rights. The chronicles
of history reveal that it was only after television coverage of riots and
several demonstrations did President Kennedy feel a need to introduce the
1963 Civil Rights Act. At that time, experts believe the nation was headed
toward a major race war.
History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that
approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King as " that
***** preacher." Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a "trouble maker" who
causes trouble and then runs like a "coward," when trouble breaks out.
Over the strong objections of racist Republican Senator Jessie Helms,
Republican President Ronald Reagan, signed into law, a bill to make Dr.
Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday. Several Republican
Senators convinced President Reagan this was the right thing to do.
Congressional records show after signing the 1972 Equal Employment
Opportunity Act and issuing Executive Order 11478, Richard Nixon, a
Republican, that started what we know as Affirmative Action.
On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to
the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary
of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the
Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an
Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans,
Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually
harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable
Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work
in an environment where they had job classification called " ***** Jobs."
Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order.
The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.
President Clinton sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of
Europe's Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the black
citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacre
During the 2003 Democratic Primary debates, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said the
Democrat take the black vote for granted and treat African American like a
mistress. They [Democrats} will take us to the dance, but they don't want to
take us home to meet mama."
On December 3, 2002, President Clinton spoke to Democratic Leadership
Council in New York regarding the future of the Democratic Party and how
they could retake the White House. At no time did he address Civil Rights
issues for blacks or doing things to improve the conditions of African
Americans. His only reference to Civil Rights was Civil Rights for Gays. His
only reference to improving communities was his recommendation to revisit
the Marshall Plan to re-build communities in other countries. His entire
speech was aired on C-Span.
After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years,
the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights
legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically
designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today.
Congressional records show that all previous legislation (since 1964) had
strong bi-partisan support, even though some Democrats debated and voted
against these laws.
After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never
experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted
it through:
Racist Legislation
Terrorist Organizations
Negative Media Communications
Bias Education
Relentless Intimidation
And Flawed Adjudication.
The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party
affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott
decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never
offered or issued an apology.
Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the
terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must
remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete
the work that their predecessors started and died for.
.

User: "Gandalf Grey"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 06:50:01 PM

"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12k7qfeci8ud3c5@corp.supernews.com...

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lj7k29bahjj18n90tbg7td3c70u6mlomj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said

Btw...I take it you approved of Cruckshank? Reaffirming that slavery was
legal and they had no rights.

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution

The Racist History of the Republican Party

The Republican Party and racism: from the "southern strategy" to Bush
By Patrick Martin
24 December 2002
It was Richard Nixon who, after the landslide defeat of Republican
presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, sought to reorient the
Republican Party to the white racist elements in the southern states. Nixon's
"southern strategy" involved an appeal to those former Democrats in the
South who were disaffected by the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the
Voting Rights Act by a Democratic Congress, and the enforcement of these
laws by the Johnson administration.
The southern states-where blacks had been virtually barred from voting since
the end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period in 1876-began to break
with the Democratic Party in 1948. Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign
carried South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, winning margins
of up to 80 percent in the all-white electorate. In the next three
presidential elections, the southern states largely returned in the
Democratic camp, as the two major bourgeois parties vacillated over the
civil rights question.
In 1956, for instance, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won a
landslide reelection, but six southern states, including the four that had
voted for Thurmond, backed Democrat Adlai Stevenson, who was considered more
sympathetic to the maintenance of Jim Crow. Eisenhower had nominated Earl
Warren, a liberal Republican from California, as chief justice of the
Supreme Court, and Warren was the principal author of the 1954 Brown v.
Board of Education decision outlawing segregated schools.
In the 1964 election, with Johnson as president after the assassination of
John F. Kennedy, the Republican presidential nominee Goldwater came out
openly against the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which a majority of his
own party in Congress had supported. Goldwater's far-right campaign was
overwhelmingly rejected at the polls, but he carried five states in the Deep
South: the four carried by Thurmond in 1948, plus Georgia.
In 1968 Alabama's segregationist governor George Wallace mounted an
independent presidential campaign, which carried four of the five Goldwater
states-Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia-as well as Arkansas. But
in a sign of things to come, South Carolina followed the lead of Senator
Strom Thurmond, who abandoned the Democratic Party, switched to the
Republicans, and held the state for Nixon.
The Republican Party took up the long-time political methods of the southern
Democrats, using racial demagogy to tie impoverished white workers and small
farmers to the ruling aristocracy. In many cases-Thurmond was the forerunner
for hundreds-Democratic politicians simply changed party labels while
maintaining the same political orientation.
Lott followed a slightly different career path. He began as an aide to a
notorious segregationist Democratic congressman, William Colmer. When Colmer
retired in 1972, Lott sought to fill the vacancy, but ran as a Republican,
not a Democrat, aligning himself with Nixon's victorious presidential
reelection campaign.
In the aftermath of the mass movement for civil rights, which mobilized
millions of black workers and youth with the support of substantial layers
of the working class and middle class nationally, it was less and less
possible to gain political office through open appeals to segregationism.
Instead, the Republican Party evolved a sort of political code, in which
opposition to welfare programs and advocacy of "states' rights" took the
place of overt defense of white supremacy.
The political meaning of this language was clear to all involved. One
incident demonstrates the method: Ronald Reagan's decision to launch his
1980 general election campaign with an appearance at the Neshoba County Fair
in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the most notorious crime of the
civil rights era, the murder of three young civil rights workers in 1964.
When Reagan delivered a speech in which he declared, "I believe in states'
rights," he was giving his tacit support to the maintenance of the social
and economic oppression of the black population, even while the outward
forms of legalized racism had been eliminated.
From then on, the Republican Party cemented its domination of the South, and
especially of the states of the Deep South, which were the poorest and most
backward in terms of social conditions, and where segregation and racial
terror were practiced in the harshest form. By 1994, when the Republican
Party won control of the House of Representatives and the Senate for the
first time in 40 years, it controlled the bulk of the congressional
delegation from the southern states, and its congressional leadership was
nearly all from that region: Newt Gingrich of Georgia, Richard Armey and Tom
DeLay of Texas, and Trent Lott of Mississippi.
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 11:10:56 PM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:47:50 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said
the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...

And how many of the wailing left caled for the overthrow of the
Republic?

Most in fact. They have engaged in attempting to destroy the Republic
for 70 yrs, and make it a Socialist State.

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution. We needed to
amend the Constitution to get rid of the legal basis for chattel
slavery.

See? Checks and balances.

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.
It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the ***** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
.

User: "Dana"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	28 Oct 2006 11:44:00 PM

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:dba8k2lopilr6q13s47thenqg8biaq49ck@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:47:50 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said
the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...

And how many of the wailing left caled for the overthrow of the
Republic?

Most in fact. They have engaged in attempting to destroy the Republic
for 70 yrs, and make it a Socialist State.

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution. We needed to
amend the Constitution to get rid of the legal basis for chattel
slavery.

See? Checks and balances.

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

Civil War was not about slavery. In fact Lincoln never freed the slaves in
the border states, the only slaves he wanted to free were those in the
south, as he did that as a military decision to cause problems in the souths
rear areas.
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	29 Oct 2006 11:20:20 PM

Dana wrote:

Civil War was not about slavery.

And there's no water in the oceans.
.

User: "2811 Dead"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	29 Oct 2006 12:06:34 AM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:44:00 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:dba8k2lopilr6q13s47thenqg8biaq49ck@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:47:50 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said
the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...

And how many of the wailing left caled for the overthrow of the
Republic?

Most in fact. They have engaged in attempting to destroy the Republic
for 70 yrs, and make it a Socialist State.

Hmm. You -are- a crackpot, aren't you?

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution. We needed to
amend the Constitution to get rid of the legal basis for chattel
slavery.

See? Checks and balances.

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

Every once in a while, some right wing nut claims the civil war wasn't
about slavery, and it's pretty easy to do a Google and find scans of
endless documents from before and during the civil war showing that
yes, the main issue was slavery.

--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.

User: "Gandalf Grey"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	29 Oct 2006 12:59:40 PM

"2811 Dead" <zepp22112811@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:phd8k2lcueetluppklk2gbm650o9oueobv@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:44:00 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:dba8k2lopilr6q13s47thenqg8biaq49ck@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:47:50 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:57:16 GMT Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> said
the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...

And how many of the wailing left caled for the overthrow of the
Republic?

Most in fact. They have engaged in attempting to destroy the Republic
for 70 yrs, and make it a Socialist State.

Hmm. You -are- a crackpot, aren't you?

Be careful of what you critique, boychik, your ox is gonna get Gored
(snicker) by the courts in the near future..and you may want to lay in
a
supply of crying towels.

Btw...I take it you approved of Cruckshank? Reaffirming that slavery
was
legal and they had no rights.

Absolutely. Slavery was legal under the Constitution. We needed to
amend the Constitution to get rid of the legal basis for chattel
slavery.

See? Checks and balances.

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

More than this, a great deal of what was going on in the Constitution and
the Supreme Court from ratification to the Civil War and beyond was about
slavery.

--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	29 Oct 2006 11:03:01 PM

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:59:40 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

More than this, a great deal of what was going on in the Constitution and
the Supreme Court from ratification to the Civil War and beyond was about
slavery.

Actually..States Rights in one of its manifstations..slavery.
But you are excused.
Gunner
.

User: "Dan"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 11:18:11 AM

"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:2r1bk2hbfk5tc42t74gbkprni94l2nu8ca@4ax.com...

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:59:40 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

More than this, a great deal of what was going on in the Constitution and
the Supreme Court from ratification to the Civil War and beyond was about
slavery.

Actually..States Rights in one of its manifstations..slavery.

Aha, Runner is now OPENLY against States' Rights. Or is he FOR
slavery. With him, it is hard to tell what he means!
How ironic!
Dan
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 01:16:25 PM

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:18:11 -0800, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:2r1bk2hbfk5tc42t74gbkprni94l2nu8ca@4ax.com...

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:59:40 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

More than this, a great deal of what was going on in the Constitution and
the Supreme Court from ratification to the Civil War and beyond was about
slavery.

Actually..States Rights in one of its manifstations..slavery.

Aha, Runner is now OPENLY against States' Rights. Or is he FOR
slavery. With him, it is hard to tell what he means!

How ironic!

Dan

Your buffoonishness and reading comprehension issues are noted..and
laughed at.
Are you still claiming to be a teacher btw?
Gunner
.

User: "Dan"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 02:42:29 PM

"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:tqjck2hv01254ebi3o2m51gkt0teg8hur3@4ax.com...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:18:11 -0800, "Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Gunner" <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:2r1bk2hbfk5tc42t74gbkprni94l2nu8ca@4ax.com...

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:59:40 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
<gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

Every once in a while, some right wing nut claims the civil war

wasn't

about slavery, and it's pretty easy to do a Google and find scans of
endless documents from before and during the civil war showing that
yes, the main issue was slavery.

More than this, a great deal of what was going on in the Constitution

and

the Supreme Court from ratification to the Civil War and beyond was

about

slavery.

Actually..States Rights in one of its manifstations..slavery.

Aha, Runner is now OPENLY against States' Rights. Or is he FOR
slavery. With him, it is hard to tell what he means!

How ironic!

Dan

Your buffoonishness and reading comprehension issues are noted..and
laughed at.

Are you still claiming to be a teacher btw?

So you didn't say that one of the manifestations of "States' Rights"
was slavery?
Last I heard, you were an advocate of strong states' rights - perhaps
I misconstrued some of your prior writings?
I just put the two together using NeoCon logic, so where was my
fault?
And, yes, I still teach. I'd put your reasoning power somewhere
near early Middle School levels, when hormone-poisoning prevents
many from achieving logical thought processes.
Dan
.

User: "Strabo"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 03:23:10 PM

2811 Dead wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:44:00 -0800, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:

See? Checks and balances.

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

No, not the main issue, simply an on-going irritant that had
conflicted with moral and secular society since 1620.
The issue was state power versus federal power as seen by the
various trade conflicts and territorial disputes of the time. Slavery
became the legal battle ground because it was integral to the
formation of new states from the western territories. Were the
new states to continue as strong state powers or give up that power to
the federal government?
There was nothing new about doing away with slavery. Attempts to
get rid of it began before the signing of the Declaration. By 1859
it was no longer seen as an economic benefit and societies north and
south generally disapproved of it. But, there was no practical
resolution.
Lincoln chose to make it a physical war. He was under pressure from
commercial interests that sought a stronger central government, one
that could for example, establish a national bank and replace the
monetary metal standard. It took several more tries and fifty years
before they got their way.
As we see today the 'great emancipation' was not. Slavery continues
under new laws and in a modifed form.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	29 Oct 2006 11:02:03 PM

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:06:34 -0700, 2811 Dead
<zepp22112811@finestplanet.com> wrote:

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

Every once in a while..some history challenged Leftard makes the claim
that the Civil War wasnt about States Rights, but about slavery.
But then..they also believe in Marxism being a workable political and
economic system.
So..shrug..what can you expect?
Gunner
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 06:11:32 AM

Gunner <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in
news:tn1bk2pi455jjur7dh9j3mgjgcpqdpighm@4ax.com:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:06:34 -0700, 2811 Dead
<zepp22112811@finestplanet.com> wrote:

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

Civil War was not about slavery. In fact Lincoln never freed the slaves
in the border states, the only slaves he wanted to free were those in
the south, as he did that as a military decision to cause problems in
the souths rear areas.

Every once in a while..some history challenged Leftard makes the claim
that the Civil War wasnt about States Rights, but about slavery.

"Far from a "peculiar institution," slavery was, as Confederate
Vice President Alexander Stephens declared, 'the cornerstone"
of the Confederacy. As such, it was protected even more in the
Confederate Constitution than it had been in the proslavery U.S.
Constitution of 1787. The most obvious difference between the two
documents lay in their use of the term slavery. In deference in
1787 to some of the Northern delegates who thought their constituents
might oppose the Constitution if the word appeared, the framers of
the U.S. Constitution substituted such phrases as other persons,
such persons, and persons owing service for the word slaves. No
such problems arose in the framing of the Confederate document.
The blatantly proslavery Confederate Constitution contains the words
slave or slavery ten times in seven separate clauses."
www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.htm
Mitchell Holman
"Actually in most of the school shootings they were
Democrats who did the deeds."
"Gunner", Oct 18, 2006
.

User: "Gunner"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 10:57:17 AM

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 06:11:32 -0600, Mitchell Holman
<Noemail@comcast.com> wrote:

Gunner <gunner@Nospam.lightspeed.net> wrote in
news:tn1bk2pi455jjur7dh9j3mgjgcpqdpighm@4ax.com:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:06:34 -0700, 2811 Dead
<zepp22112811@finestplanet.com> wrote:

Cruikshanks didnt remove slavery. Yet SCOTUS affirmed it.

It took armed and bloody civil war to remove it.

Civil War was not about slavery. In fact Lincoln never freed the slaves
in the border states, the only slaves he wanted to free were those in
the south, as he did that as a military decision to cause problems in
the souths rear areas.

Every once in a while..some history challenged Leftard makes the claim
that the Civil War wasnt about States Rights, but about slavery.

"Far from a "peculiar institution," slavery was, as Confederate
Vice President Alexander Stephens declared, 'the cornerstone"
of the Confederacy. As such, it was protected even more in the
Confederate Constitution than it had been in the proslavery U.S.
Constitution of 1787. The most obvious difference between the two
documents lay in their use of the term slavery. In deference in
1787 to some of the Northern delegates who thought their constituents
might oppose the Constitution if the word appeared, the framers of
the U.S. Constitution substituted such phrases as other persons,
such persons, and persons owing service for the word slaves. No
such problems arose in the framing of the Confederate document.
The blatantly proslavery Confederate Constitution contains the words
slave or slavery ten times in seven separate clauses."

www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.htm

Mitchell Holman

Yes and? It should also be noted that Slavery was NOT ended in the
Northern States until 1867. Two years after the end of the War of
Northern Agression ended. I wonder why Lincoln didnt include those
states NOT in rebellion in the Emancipation Proclamation?
And to be truthful..it wasnt a "civil war". It was a war between two
seperate nations. A war fought over the rights of states to leave, and
form a new nation.
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights
efore the institution of the United States Constitution, the Articles
of Confederation created a government composed purely of a collection
of states cooperating together, with no overruling or federal
government. However, the Constitution implemented the federal
government to rule over the nation as a whole, with a vague boundary
between the two co-existing "levels" of government. In the event a
state's law should overlap federal law, the Constitution resolved the
conflict in the Supremacy Clause in Article VI in favor of the federal
government, which declares federal law the "supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798,
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and
Virginia Resolutions that gave the classic statement of states'
rights. The Union is a voluntary association of states and if the
central government goes too far, each state has the right to nullify
that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of
America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to
their general government; but that by compact under the style and
title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments
thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,
delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each
State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own
self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes
undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an
integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other
party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions became the bedrock principles of
Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. Those supporters, such as
John Randolph, who insisted loudest on states' rights, were called
"Old republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.
Another dispute occurred over the War of 1812. At the Hartford
Convention, New England states voiced opposition to President Madison
and the war, and discussed secession from the Union.
[edit] Nullification
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820
through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily
dependent upon trade, the almost entirely agricultural and
export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured needs from
Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a
growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as
competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were
viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.
In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in
the northern states, but were detrimental to the South. Southerners
vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the
South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to
the "Tariff of Abominations". Exposition and Protest was the work of
South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of
protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.
South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared the tariff of 1828
and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. It
began the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on
November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew
Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval
flotilla and a threat of sending government ground troops to enforce
the tariffs.
[edit] Civil War
Over the following decades, another dispute over states' rights moved
to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the
principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson often being cited by by both
anti-slavery Northerners and secessionists on the debates that
ultimately led to the American Civil War. Supporters of slavery often
argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of
slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the Supreme
Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision.
Jefferson Davis used the following argument in favor of the equal
rights of states, as opposed to the declaration that all men are
created equal:

States' rights
Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality
of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially
the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign
capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to
person or property, so as, in the Territories -- which are the common
possession of the United States -- to give advantages to the citizens
of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other
State.[1]

States' rights
The Preamble to the Confederate States Constitution begins: "We, the
people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign
and independent character..."
Indeed..slavery was the straw that broke the camels back..but it was
hardly the reason the war was fought.
And we are again..on a collision course with States Rights vrs Federal
Rights. And in fact..have already seen the opening salvos. Though they
have been in the courtroom, rather than the battle field.
So far.
Gunner
.

User: "Jeff McCann"
Title: Re: It's Time For Rebellion Against Judicial Tyrants	30 Oct 2006 11:05:57 AM

"Gunner" <g