‘We know who he is’: Donald Trump continues to target officer who shot Ashli Babbitt

If you actually believe what I quoted, then the ability to reason would be moot.

 

Hey, show some respect for the dead. People have a need to memorialize Rush Limbaugh.

 

Can you point me to the area in the Constitution that states that? No?

Didn't think so.

 

And that was in negotiation as to it being revocable and international law say that was the sovereign territory and waters of South Carolina. The Union had been warned that any attempt to send troops and artillery to the island where the fort was under construction would be view as an attempt to blockade their port and considered an act of war. Not only did they break the agreement and sent troops there then Lincoln tried to send a fleet into South Carolina waters to bring supplies.

Lincoln bumbled his way into a war, the Confederacy had no desire to go to war with the United States they were seeking a peaceful relation with a trading partner. But to have Union forces in a position to blockade that HIGHLY important port if the Union invaded the Confederacy, which of course it did a few weeks later, was untenable. No country would allow such a thing.

 

They can't and it was common belief that a State could leave that Union. States retained their sovereignty. Those who never studied history usually do not understand that when this country was founded as the United STATES, that the States where the most important government for each citizen. The federal government was kinda in the background and protect our borders and the few things the Constitution states they are to do. Since Lincoln there has been a gradual or though at certain times more rapid advancement of the Federal Government assuming more and more power over the states and the citizens and we would do the country well to reverse that so that we citizens had closer control of our lives and our freedoms and liberty.

 

Had more officers killed more of the protestors?????????????????????????????????

I missed you taking this same position when the Kavanaugh insurrectionist invaded the Capital. I missed it when the Floyd rioters tried to get through the fencing and barricades and law enforcement at the White House so they could get Trump. I missed it about Portland, Seattle, New York, Chicago and host of other cities.

 

The amendment process.

 

Because it was federal property. And, South Carolina was not a "country." But, it you'd like to try it again...be my guest.

 

The "Kavanaugh insurrectionists" had assigned seats. The Capitol was open at the time. They were protesting. All were arrested and punished with fines...as probably most of the January 6th people will be, provided they didn't destroy anything, steal anything, or injury anyone.

 

That points to nothing- you may as well said "baked potato".

 

Indeed. But I like to see thier answers. It's a source of amusement to me.

Oh, and Lincoln was not a great man. He was a war criminal.

 

Oh...you probably haven't read the Constitution...there is an amendment process that allows for any change that has sufficient votes. The process is described in Article V.

 

No there was a rush of protestors into the building trying to stop the proceedings and even trapping a Senator in an elevator, they were there to occupy. The Jan 6 protestors were protesting.

 

History has been very kind to Lincoln.

 

The Confederate States of America was a country and South Carolina remained a sovereign state and the land was within their waters. It had been a federal zone at the good graces of the State of South Carolina which no now no longer a part of that government. The sending of troops there in order to blockade the port was an act of war.

 

I watched it. I saw nothing like that. The protests were in the hearing room.

 

You need to look at the definition for "ceded." On the other...there was a way it could have been settled peacefully...by amendment. There are no limitations on amendments. The Union could have been legally dissolved by amendment...although somehow I think slavery would have been prohibited regardless. Are you advocating a return to slavery?

 

I have, although it's just a piece of paper that is as important today as toilet paper.

But as I said originally, can you point me to the area in the Constitution that states that? ("If the South had wanted to secede, it should have called for a new Constitutional Convention and dissolved the Union.")

 

Article 5.

 

You are wrong.

Article 5 is in regards to the amendment process. It does not mention that in order to secede a state or states needs to call for a Constitutional Convention.

Do you really know nothing about jurisprudence? There is no amendment created, thus there is no law.

 

Do you think there is some limitation to the amendment process? There isn't.

 

If that were a fact (and it isn't) it is still besides the point and not what I asked. Please quote the part of the Constitution requiring a Constitutional Convention to dissolve "the union" before a state or states can secede.

 

You could easily amend the Constitution to allow secession. Where in the Constitution are the "limitations" to the amendment process?

 

I see you haven't read the Constitution.

The limitations are the ratification process and the SCOTUS.

That said, you are moving the goal posts. The act of secession is not restricted.

The articles define the power of the federal government. Anything not enumerated is not within government power, or more specifically left to the states.

 

Sorry...the amendment process offers a constitutional means toward secession. Federal law also supersedes State law. There is no independent route to legitimate secession. The firing on Fort Sumter was an act of insurrection and rebellion.