Friday, August 18, 2017

Lincoln was ... what?

DEEP STATE                


goebbel goebbel

I recently, not so tongue-in-cheekily, suggested that BIG FAKE NEWS could easily get rid of Trump by blithely reporting that he had been impeached.  Simple as that.  Of course GOOGLE, as a valued, and very dangerous, member of the Deep State,  could easily legitimize the lie by blocking the truth (like they're alreaedy doing). 

Try this example on for size



Roger.45 said...

Hasn't been changed here... yet.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a huge bit of irony that they just took down the statue of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney. We all know he was famous for Dred Scott, but he was also a man with grit enough to protect the American constitution against a tyrannical new president, Lincoln. Lets Review.

Half of the South has Seceded. Maryland votes that as an independent nation state they will be neutral in the coming war, and no federal army (there wasn't any such thing until just then) nor Confederate would be allowed on Maryland soil. Lincoln marches his fed army into the legislature, demands the vote, and arrests the pro-neutrality voters. Newspapers react predictably and Lincoln suspends habeas corpus between Washington and Maryland. Roger Taney comes out and calls the presidents actions the most unconstitutional act in the history of this nation. It must not stand. In response Lincoln sends his goons in to smash newspaper printing presses, suspends all habeas corpus and orders an arrest for the Chief Justice for doing his job. His order was revised to home arrest for the elderly gentleman.

The psychotic media and their stooges have just torn down a man that did what, in their sick minds, did exactly what they are attempting. Stopping a president.

Skoonj said...

Anymouse, that sounds like revisionism from Thomas DiLorenzo. Taney was a racist Democrat, and I wish I'd seen his statue taken down.

Anonymous said...

Funny thing, De Lorenzo references the hell out of his work so you can grade his papers. Skoonj, are you saying Lincoln did not suspend habeas corpus, twice? Are you claiming he did not send troops in to the legislature of the state of Maryland and arrest legislatures? Please enlighten me, what is the real story behind these historical facts? -Anymouse

Skoonj said...

Looks like I nailed it in one. A DiLorenzo rewrite of history.

Skoonj said...

Lincoln did suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and he had every right and ability to do so. He is given that ability in the Constitution,: the Writ of Habeas Corpus being a privilege, not a right, which may be suspended when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Taney contested it since he believed it should be done by Congress (as in a law) rather than by the President. But you can see how his racist, pro-slavery view might have colored his opinion. Lincoln insisted he could suspend the Writ, and should, as there was plainly a rebellion and the public safety required it.

Anonymous said...

There was no call at all for what he did, he inflamed the situation and that's what he wanted. You sound just like like the antifa bunch only leaning the other way. Anyone can justify anything. It's all right I'm used to the Lincoln protectionist, I get it you're a Hamilton guy. I collect old books written by people that lived these times. Its funny how they sound a lot more like De Lorenzo than Berg. After the 1920's ole Abe just got to be better all the time. Had Barack done half the shit Lincoln did you would have been hysterical.-Anymouse

Skoonj said...

For a serious discussion, you might want to try: Constitutional Problems
Under Lincoln, REVISED EDITION, James G. Randall.

Anonymous said...

So you must be pretty happy about all the R.E. Lee monuments coming down? I mean it's just the last chapter in the revised history your bunch pushed on the nation through reconstruction. You'll get those Tom Jefferson memorials before you know it. What's that word you like to use? Racist? -Anymouse

Skoonj said...

I don't know why you think I would like the confederate statues to come down. I don't use any such word, as I'm not a socialist, Democrat, or anything but a conservative/libertarian. Why don't you just lay down and the feeling will go away.

RavingDave said...

Skoonj, I think I might be about to enlighten you with some bad news. People hate Tanney for his "Dred Scott" decision, but a lot of them don't know there is a fugitive slave act built right into the body of the US Constitution.

Article IV, Section 2. As a matter of Constitutional law for that time period, Tanney's decision was legally correct.

Skoonj said...

You are correct, at the time Taney was within his rights to rule that was in Dred Scott. Here is what the Constitution said then:

Of these clauses in Article IV, Section 2, the last, the Fugitive Slave Clause, similar to one adopted by the Confederation Congress in the Northwest Ordinance contemporaneous with the drafting of the Constitution, is now a dead letter. Another, the Extradition Clause, imposes a theoretical duty (“shall…be delivered”) on the state governors. But the Supreme Court ruled in 1861 that judicial compulsion, by writ of mandamus, was unavailable. As a result, governors have considered themselves at liberty to refuse requests for extradition when, in their opinions, justice so demands. Rather, the clause is enforced (more or less) politically through interstate compacts, uniform state laws, and (indirectly) federal fugitive-from-justice legislation. (Constituting America, GUEST ESSAYIST: JOERG KNIPPRATH, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL.)

Since Dred Scott was prior to the 1861 decision, you are correct, his decision was legal. Yes, he could have ruled otherwise, but didn't.

However, Taney was still a racist and a slimy Democrat bastard.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.