Jump to content

Obama's state department about to legalize millions of illegals, b


Security

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not true. Surprised you chimed in on a subject that required knowledge deeper than a coloring book, but the 13th amendment was necessary because of 1) The border state slaves which were not included in the EP and 2) the potential court challanges that were sure to follow.

 

Take a chill pill, breath in a paper bag. Its going to be ok... B-)

 

 

 

See my reply to Darin.

 

I'll also add, the 13th Amendment even needed backing up by the 14th amendment because the southern states started passing black codes which basically re-enslaved them.

So...

 

The 13th Amendment was necessary because of the expectation of Court challenges which would state that the EP didn't actually set anyone free?

 

You do understand that you're making my agrument now, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...

 

The 13th Amendment was necessary because of the expectation of Court challenges which would state that the EP didn't actually set anyone free?

 

You do understand that you're making my agrument now, right?

Nope. In a legal system that had just recently made the Dred Scott decision, a ruling that the EP was unconstitutional was inevitable. That's all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. In a legal system that had just recently made the Dred Scott decision, a ruling that the EP was unconstitutional was inevitable. That's all

So it was inevitable that the Court would rule that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually set anyone free?

 

I'm pretty sure I win now.

 

Yup. I win.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that you're making my agrument now, right?

 

Of course he doesn't...

 

It was inevitable that a pro-slavery judge would say the president couldn't take people's property away

 

Because the law said the president couldn't.

 

So the legislative process needed to be followed to change the law so that a judge wouldn't overturn the executive declaration that violated federal law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because the law said the president couldn't.

 

So the legislative process needed to be followed to change the law so that a judge wouldn't overturn the executive declaration that violated federal law?

That violated the law according to a pro-slavery judge! An anti-slavery judge could have ruled the opposite.

 

Now, I'll give you this because I'm sure you wouldn't get it on your own:

 

Lincoln felt he couldn't do this, except under the military necessity. He accepted--this one time--the south's arguments that they were a separate nation--even while saying they were not. So in taking a foreign nation's property he felt legally able to that, even while saying they were not a foreign nation. All that meant was the legal challanges were sure to come. Still, the slaves freed in 1863, 1864 and early 1865 stayed forever free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That violated the law according to a pro-slavery judge! An anti-slavery judge could have ruled the opposite.

 

You're an idiot. The law said that slaves were property, and the federal government had to treat them as such, until the 13th Amendment was passed.

 

Now, I'll give you this because I'm sure you wouldn't get it on your own:

 

Lincoln felt he couldn't do this, except under the military necessity. He accepted--this one time--the south's arguments that they were a separate nation--even while saying they were not. So in taking a foreign nation's property he felt legally able to that, even while saying they were not a foreign nation. All that meant was the legal challanges were sure to come. Still, the slaves freed in 1863, 1864 and early 1865 stayed forever free.

 

Yes, they were a foreign nation's property, under US law. That's why they weren't free, they were CONTRABAND, you !@#$ing moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 Years young

 

bull ****. You would have learned something after almost 50 years, even by accident.

 

Obamacare = End of the Republic

Immigration Policy = End of Republic

Yawn

 

Yes, and they're built on the precedent of Bush's signing statements, which were unconstitutional.

 

And the next Republican president will take Obama's precedent a step further, and you'll B word and moan about how unconstitutional it is, because you're a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're an idiot. The law said that slaves were property, and the federal government had to treat them as such, until the 13th Amendment was passed.

 

Yes, they were a foreign nation's property, under US law. That's why they weren't free, they were CONTRABAND, you !@#$ing moron.

Oh yes, I forgot how they were tagged and stored in warehouses :rolleyes:

 

bull ****. You would have learned something after almost 50 years, even by accident.

 

.

Like self control of my emotions? :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...