I haven't seen any poll information.
Is it even remotely possible to beat this jackass?
Tim Michels is looking good, were due for a change and from what iv'e observed alot of the 18-25 yr olds iv'e spoken to are at least right leaning if not die hard conservative republicans. Combine that with the fact that hispanic voters have been increasingly voting conservative and though black voters tend to vote democrat many are decidedly conservative when polled on issues rather than party. And Wisconsin (outside of Berkley east aka Madison,and Milwaukee) is pretty much Republican country.I expect to see Feingold out of a job, legal concealed carry and no commiefornia style state AWB. hree
Dunno about the chances, but to be honest, my feelings are mixed on Sen Fiengold.
Warning: personal opinions ahead.
<---<--- Already beat up over this, so please don't add insult to injury!
On one hand, Russ is a raving lunatic when it comes to both the 1st Amendment and Abortion (campaign finance was his bill, and he's on the record that abortion should be legal even
after birth). As far as I'm concerned, the BOR is non-negotiable, and his abortion statement is appaling.
On the other hand, he took a stand on the Patriot Act (see previous statement on the BOR before deriding), voted not to go to enforce a UN resolution that would result in the deaths of our Soldiers (war w/ Iraq), and voted not to expand the Fed.gov's bureaucracy via the clusterf$^% "Department of Homeland Security".
Same thing applies to "free trade" issues (read NAFTA, GATT, and the upcoming FTAA). He does straddle the fence on guns, but he's pretty close to an old-timey (pre-FDR) Democrat, so the "D" next to his name doesn't bother me all that much.
As an "America First" kinda guy, I admire his stands and appreciate the votes...even if they are for the wrong reasons.
Tim Michaels is just plain scary. I'm sure Dave_A thinks he's a god-send (sorry to pick, D, but neo-con positions are not my thing and you're the only one I've ever met that admits to having one), but I'm pretty sure he can do more harm than good.
On one hand, he's strong on defense and the 2nd Amendment (both good things), but he's also stated that he would strengthen the Patriot Act (ala the [Un] Patriot Act 2), expand federal LE powers via DHS, and vote for any "free trade" agreement that comes across his desk.
His opinion on abortion is admirable, but to be honest; although I am pro-life, I believe it (along with most other issues) comes down to a state's rights decision. In other words, I don't want a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, or anything else.
I already pay so many taxes that even with a permanent "Bush" tax cut, it wouldn't really matter. Besides, "all bills of revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives".
I'm not sure if there's a Libertarian or a Constitution Party candidate running; but if there is, I'll probably vote for them. If not, maybe I'll write in The_Red_Goat or SgtAR15.
Dunno which I'll end up doing, but to choose between Dem and Repub in this case is to choose how big of a fist you want up your butt.
Texans: you wouldn't wanna send Ron Paul up this way to run for Senate would you? I know I'd appreciate the gift!
Etited because I can't spell "bureaucracy" without a few extra letters.
Awwww geeez, now you went and did it.
Neo-cons are the left's Trojan Horse and we took 'em inside the gates over two decades ago.
They've gutted the conservative position steadily since then and manufactured playpens for us ala Rush Limbaugh.
Some ineffectual place that we go to feel better, but nothing ever materializes, no activism, no organization ......... the playpens just defuse conservatives and lull them back to a sedentary state.
I could jump on a "Ron Paul / Pat Buchanan" ticket.
I'd be out ringin' doorbells for that one.
I'm inclined to agree with FMD on this. There are some things that Russ has done that I don't agree with or think he could have done differently. But he has shown that he listens to "us" and by "us" I mean gun owners. Sure he can improve on that front and I'm sure if we hit him hard enough we can get him to support more pro-gun bills and causes. The Sen. we really need to get rid of is Kohl. That man represents no one but himself and he's got a phat 100% rating from the brady bunch, nuff said.
I think the only reason he voted the way he did on the AWB is because it's an election year.
I think giving the R's every advantage available in the senate will come in handy if a couple of supreme court j's croak in the next 4 years.
I sent this e-mail to Tim Michels campaign yesterday.
"Congratulations on the primary win.
I just want to ask one question.....What is Tim Michels stance on the
2nd Amendment? In particular, the recently expired 1994 "assault" weapon
ban?"I left it open ended trying not to convey MY viewpoint to see what a point blank question would get answered with.
This was a direct response...
"He supports the sunset."
Thats not saying much.
See sig line.
He gets an "F" rating from the GOA ...
True and he has a 77% rating by the brady bunch. But he has made it known that he takes gun bills one at a time. That means he can be pressured to see things our way on those issues if enough people hit him with calls and emails and faxes and snail mail. We're not getting a big FU from him right off the bat like people in cali and NY get from some or all of thier Sens.
I bet if we hit him enough, we can get him to back the lawsuit premption bill for gun makers if we take the time to write to him on a regular basis, Just like with the AWB renewal stuff, remember he backed the bill originaly, and has since had a change of heart and now sees it as what it was, a failed, POS legislation that did nothing.
I tend to agree with FMD and Photoman here. Not on every single point, but most. Fiengold may not be the best but I do like the fact that he is not afraid to break from the party line (either party's). Another of his good points is that he is tight with the $$, which (in general) translates into smaller government. A good thing IMO.
Damn. I blew post #200 on these
I've emailed the Michels campaign to get the straight scoop on his "Free Trade" positions, as I may have incorrectly stated his opinions.
I'm actually impressed that all you conservatives would be willing to even think about voting for a Dem.
I hate to say it, but pending Tim Michel's response to my Trade question, it's a toss-up (again with the fist-in-the-butt caveat).
PM, I agree that Kohl is the one to vote out of office. Hell, I'd vote for Ted Kennedy over him.
From what I understand of Sen. Feingold, he's cheap. Doesn't like to spend money. Very cheap, among the stingiest.
We need more like him.
He doesn't seem to play the if you vote for my pet pork project, I'll vote for yours.
He's a fiscal conservative.
As a libertarian and former McCain 'man'(I will NEVER forgive the GW machine for the campaign 'slams' they did on John,I thought he was worth my vote in 2000 just to get campaign finance reform),Michels will have to prove himself to me.Being Sgt. of the Guard and Ranger isn't enough,all that proves TO ME is he knows how to eat cheese and kick ass.I also want to know how much of Michel's pipeline contracting is "Govt' Cheese $$$".
I went to see and personally meet both Russ and the 'dud'(I can't even remember his name) who ran against him in '92.Russ was the only politician I met that year who sat down and asked everybody to voice thier opinions,criticisms and concerns.The 'other guys' SAT US DOWN and proceeded to tell us 'how it was gonna be'...
I have the feeling most of my ??s about Michels will be answered soon,now that the choice has been made the skeletons will come out of the closet,hehehe.His financial dealings,any public contracts or lobbying he's made that are part of public information,financial disclosure,business associates,,ex-employees,etc.The fun is only beginning after what I saw as a 'kindergarten' Rep. primary.
If there is one race that really matters in WI it's Russ's Senate seat,and both sides know it.The political machines inWashington on both sides hate Russ.I lobbied all my representatives to vote against the "patriot act",and against the "Presidential Authority".At the same time I lobbied all my Representatives up to the President to have the GUTS to VOTE for WAR or NOT,,,not some middle ground 'CYA' policy.Both sides can use thier vote as a pathetic excuse to SHIRK thier RESPONSIBILITY!
AFAIC Russ is the only one with any BALLS in Washington.
Well, we've got one more guy who believes the PATRIOT act violates the BOR (even though it doesn't, see: www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=276296 if you think otherwise and can prove it), and he's willing to possibly throw the Senate to the Dems because of it...
We've got another who wishes Johnny 'RINO' McCain was President...
GUYS, IF YOU GIVE A RATS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, FEINGOLD HAS GOT TO GO!
Feingold is voting with the (D)s to block Bush's nominees...
This is not 'advise and consent', as the (D)s are not in the majority and should not have a the ability to prevent the majority from confirming the nominees (a sure thing if a vote were allowed)...
That trumps any differences over PATRIOT, or weather government should engage in restraint of trade, or whatever
If Feingold would simply jump ship and vote with the (R)s for cloture on judicial nominations, I'd be less peeved at him...
But (A) CFR and (B) filibuster => That man has GOT to go...
Yes, I'm the type of Republican who would like to see a const ammendment banning tarriffs except in retaliation to such activitiy by a foriegn power, and prohibiting punative taxation of US companies overseas operations. I believe in a totally free market where no company is 'protected' from competition. Free trade should be the law, as restraint of trade is just as bad for the economy when goernment creates it as when the private sector does.
I'm the kind of guy who believes that the solution to the present terror problem lies in many more wars like Iraq, each ending with a free government replacing the prior regime... I also believe that since the Constitution limits government only by what it says, the power of Commander in Chief allows the President to do what he wishes with the military, EXCEPT for formally declare war. Since declared wars don't happen anymore (they are a bygone formality from the era of armies lining up in a field & exchanging musket fire), this is a non-issue....
And I happen to hold the belief that the PATRIOT Act is constitutional (constitutionality is a concrete, black & white, is-or-isn't sort of thing - there is no 'barely'), whereas Campaign Finance Reform is NOT.
But ALL OF THAT is iirelevant here, as TO ME THE SENATE RACE IS ABOUT ONE MORE (R) CLOSER TO GETTING THE JUDGES THROUGH...
I'd elect a half-trained monkey to the Senate if I knew it would vote with the Republicans on that issue right now, as that is the SINGLE ISSUE of importance -> getting strict constructionalists on the Federal bench...
And here's my problem with your politics, Dave. You have no Constitutional scholarship. The Constitution actually enumerates what the fed.gov is allowed to do, recognizing and protecting pre-exsisting rights held inviolate by the People and the States, not granting them. You have the whole relationship backwards. See the 9th and 10th Amendments for clarification.
Dave, if your idea of a "strict constitutionalist" means that they hold to the same idea of an all-powerful State, then thank God for the Democrats and their fillibusters!
Sorry, but I don't like either part legislating from the bench.
I read the thread, and have another idea, Dave. How about you cite the Constitutional Article that contains authorization for such legislation? Please also include the funding aspect.
Then it's unconstitutional (from a "strict constructionist" standpoint) then.
Read the Constitution, Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers before you pick up one more copy of The New Republic, please.
"Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
Therefore, the power to 'provide for the common defense' is given to Congress.
Authorizing measures against agents of a foreign power/organization attacking the US on our own soil (which it does) fits there...
Once again, as noted in the other thread, all the period writings in the world mean nothing when dealing with this subject.
It's law not theology...
If there is a written authorization in the Constitution for something, than it is OK in it's entirity unless it runs afoul of another provision.
There is written authorization to 'provide for the common defense', which is what Congress enacted PATRIOT to do...
Which we seem to be accusing eachother of doing...
To me, a 'Strict Constructionalist' reads the Constitution, and using the literal english-language meaning of the words without any consideration of 'spirit' or 'intent', says 'this is allowed' or 'this is not'.
So PATRIOT would be allowed under 'common defense'
CFR would be a blatant violation of the 1st Ammendment -> bye-bye...
And the undeclared war with Iraq would be allowed under the granted power of Commander in Cheif, as long as Congress continues to fund it.
I agree with you that the Constitution exists to limit government, but I view it so strictly and narrowly that I believe that such limits & authorizations (a) only exist if enumerated, and (b) if enumerated, pwers are absolute unless specifically restricted by another provision.
We are dealing with reserved powers here, so the 10th does not apply, as all these actions can be authorized by an explicitly granted power.
An example of a 10th ammendment issue would be abortion, unless a constitutional ammendment is passed banning it (ammendments cannot be unconstituional, as they change the constitution to allow whatever the ammendment says), it should be a state issue... The 'right to privacy' invented in Roe is one of the worst examples of activisim since Dredd Scott...
As for what the guys that Bush has put up will likely do, these are the one's I'm specifically looking for:
- Declare Roe V Wade invalid without ruling on the legality of abortion, by stating that ammendments do not have penumbras and that Federal involvement in the abortion issue violates the 10th Ammendment. I would like to see someone say that judges lack the power to declare the existance of a federal right, but I doubt any judge from either side would issue a decision limiting his own power....
- Declare Affirmative Action unconstitutional, as a violation of the equal protection clause
- Hold the 2nd Ammendment as an absolute individual right, on the path to striking down 922(o) and 922(r). The FFL system & NICS don't 'infringe' on anything (remember, the 14th allows you to lose your rights via due process of law, i.e. criminal conviction), but sporting purposes tests, and the ban on new MGs certainly do.
I doubt you'd disagree with any of those 3 positions, except maybe the part about felons not having rights... But that doesn't change the desired outcome....
The guys that have been put up are mostly old-time southern conservatives & a few Regan-republicans...
P.S. What's your big beef with free trade. It's not a constitutional issue, as either protectionist or free trade policy is legitimate under any interpretation of the Commerce Clause....
To me, free trade is a matter of eliminating non-competative firms anywhere in the world. The good firrms will swim, the rest will sink, and we will have a stronger economy for it... When you protect weakness, you get more weakness. When you require strength, you get more strength...
If your company cannot compete in business, it does not belong in business...
Trade restraint should be reserved for foreign countries who practice it, as a strictly retaliatory measure...
I've come to the conclusion that it's not even worth pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments, because you just keep repeating them over and over and over and over...
As far as "Free Trade"; I put that term in quotes for a reason. It has alternately been the moniker for both American mercantilism and international protectionism (which is it's current form). It has absolutely nothing to do with true laissez-faire capitalism, which is the ideal, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll let you borrow my Bastiat if you'd like to learn.
Dave, let's face it. Your views of government are the great grand child of Madison, Clay, Webster, Lincoln, and Webster. My views stem from Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Jay.
My views became real unpopular when the all powererful "Commander-in-Cheif" that you advocate started imprisoning members of Congress, State legislatures, Governors, and threatening the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court with the same.
I hate to say it, but it'll probably take another civil war and a "re-education" camp for me to give an inch to the statist world view, and make no mistake; that's exactly what you advocate: Statism.
Call me (really), if you ever want to find out where you're wrong. We'll have a sit-down.
The only thing I would ask is that we agree to only one source of info: The United States Constitution. No articles from "Foreign Affairs", no RNC dogma. Just the "plain language" of the Constitution.
In other words, if something is not present in the "plain language" (period, NO interpretation) = then it's not authorized = which means it's illegal government activity.
I won't even bring tar and feathers. Honest.
Till then...FMD, over and out.
PS Sorry for the hijack, Red_Beard.
When did this happen? just curious.
I didn't say anything about the PA and the Bill of Rights,I said I was against the PA.That law was written carefully just so the sheep (on both sides)can spout out the party line about how it doesn't violate our rights.
And as far as war it is undeclared in my book.Congress's job is to put the CHECK on elPresidente,not give him a permission slip to ru(i)n this Country.I lived the the end of War on Communism in VN,Commie wall falling down, ,now the war on drugs and war on Contras,war on noriega,war` on Iraq1,war on WMDs,war on terrorism...A coup d`etat is a coup d`etat no matter what you call it.Don't piss on me and tell me that it's raining.
The roots of my 'depression',,,I believe in leading by example and "doing unto others"...
No where in this Country would 'we'(the state,or even the local 'militia') let rioting,looting and 'terror' go unchecked like we did in Iraq after the USA TOOK over,I think we did this Country and thiers a great dis-service because I saw in my heart a GREAT VICTORY become a GREAT DEFEAT.Mission accomplished became a sick joke that I still cannot fathom completely.I didn't go to OCS either so ask any 'militia nut', you can't have a successful 'take over'(coup) without a roundup.
Rino,,,I wonder every now and then,where would we be today if we had a REAL Warrior as CiC.I am just a worm on this earth compared to a man with the leadership,integrity,courage and guts like Rino.Who cares if he "spawned a black child"?
You're a smart guy Dave but you need to read less and follow less and get out into the real world.You will end up doing more thinking for yourself,I'm sure.
There may never be another "declared" war Dave but that doesn't mean there can't be a VOTE...I see the 'roots' of your indoctrination.
My head hurts................
Linclon used the Constitutional power to suspend Habeus Corpus in time of rebellion/insurrection, and proceeded to have various enemy sympathizers arrested.
It has never been used at any time prior or since, but a revolt by half the country is a 'unique' circumstance, of the type for which that clause was written...
Ding Ding Ding! He wins the cupie doll!
(You only had to look at my next sentance).
However, that last part of your statement is false. The clause says:
Note that this clause is in Article I, regulating legislative actions NOT in Article II, enumerating executive actions.
Lincoln illegally usurped congressional power and used this clause despite the fact that the Southern States' "revolt" posed no threat to public safety. He also did so with a full understanding that the several States did, in fact, have a right to suceed (as an example; this fact was taught at West Point classes on the Constitution until 1861).
"Enemy sympathizers"? How bout US Supreme Court Cheif Justice Taney? It was his job to hold the President in check, but you can't do that from a jail cell now can you?
The "father" of the modern Republican party was directly responsible for over 1/2 Million American deaths, to illegaly strengthen the Federal Government's power over the people.
That is the origin of your modern Republican party. That "winning" platform of the 1860 Republican Party contained Lincoln's advocation of Henry Clay's "American System", namely: "...a National Bank...internal improvements system and a high protective tariff" (Lincoln in 1832 commenting on his goals as a politician). The National Bank was a blatant attempt for Federal control of the money supply. Each time it was implemented by a legislature from 1790-1861, it's charter was revoked as unconstitutional. The "internal improvements system" included fed.gov subsidies for the railroad, shipping, and canal businesses. "Protective Tarriffs" were another name for .gov sponsored monopolies, i.e. mercantilism.
Dictionary (MW) Entry: stat·ism: Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.
The several States that became the Confederacy each left individualy, because their rights demanded it. They had the Founding Father's vision of America, and refused to bow to the statist President, or recognize the Constitutionalaly criminal idea of "Might makes Right". They were the ones in the right, no matter how you look at it.
I'll repeat my previous statement because it's signifigant:
The "father" of the modern Republican party was directly responsible for over 1/2 Million American deaths, to illegaly strengthen the Federal Government's power over the people.
Has 143 years mitigated that fact? Has time erased the injustice? Has time change what the United States was meant to be?
MNSHO, no, and I'll vote for the candidate closest to holding the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
You will disagree, and vote the guy that has an (R) next to his name.
Just don't cast stones (or invoke the Constitution) before you truly understand where your throwing them. Please also remember that your advocation of a supreme executive works both ways. If Kerry wins, he would have the same power you wish that Bush would have.
You might be singing a different tune if it were Repulicans in the Senate opposing liberal activist judges, now wouldn't you?
I have to add something here. When terrorists attack us and we create patriot acts taking away OUR FREEDOM we have lost the battle. When we install fund and arm people like osama bin laden and saddam hussein and use them as pre-text for war there can be no victory. Saudi Arabians attacked us for the most part on 9-11, so we invade iraq to uninstall the dictator we installed and take back the weapons of mass destruction we know he has because we supplied them. Now our boys are dying with no clear goals for victory or even the support they need like body armor or armored vehicles. Halliburton the carlyle group and several other corporations are making billions at our expense, are we really this ignorant? This michaels guy makes me sick, "our country is hurting" and Russ Feingold voted against the patriot act." WELL YOUR DAMN RIGHT HE VOTED AGAINST TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOM AND YOUR DAMN RIGHT HE VOTED AGAINST THIS WAR IN IRAQ BECAUSE ITS WRONG! We need to be holding our heads high like Americans. The only thing that is hurting our country is weakness and people like Mr. Michaels allowing those who are afraid dictate OUR FREEDOM and our way of life, thats what the terrorists want. The only reason I will vote this year is because of Russ Feingold!
Bork, the PATRIOT act didn't take any thing from you... You have no clue what it did... If you knew what PATRIOT did, you wouldn't be complaining about it... We had a whole thread on the subject right around when this one started, and there have been plenty before...
You're a Democrat anyway (or you're brainwashed by 'em), go back to DU...
The stuff in F911 (about Carlyle) was refuted as bullshit by the way, you might want to use a more reliable source than Mikey Moore...
We went to war in Iraq to liberate Iraq & establish a democratic example-state in the Arab world...
Oh, and John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Iraqi Army, and Saddam himself thought they had WMD...
How are our spies going to find out what happened to it if every Iraqi is telling them that it exists (Because it's 'off with your head' if you tell Saddam the truth)???
And as for Haliburton & subsidiaries, they got the job because they;'re the only company that can do it... It's been like that since the Clinton Administration... Weather it's oil services, or expanding O'Hare Airport, they tend to be called for major infastructure projects because they're the best or only company for the job...
But you won't believe me anyway, so go back to watching Moore's bullshit....
Anyway, Feingold's 'Campaign Finance Reform' actually IS a violation of the Constitution. Unlike PATRIOT... CFR is enough of a reason to throw the bum out even if he wern't a Democrat, even if he hadn't tried to cancel the F-22, and so on...
The only thing that would 'Redeem' Russ in my mind is if he managed to get the XM-8 canceled
Bork is probably rolling over in his grave over you using his name, BTW....
that's an 'h' not a 'b'
"What's the point of (the US) having all this power if it's never used to our advantage?"
Dave,the 'list' of Military actions I posted was to 'illustrate' YOUR sig line.I forgot a couple too, the funding of the Isreali war machine for half a century and the Iraqi no-fly zones.I couldn't even start to list the funding of other governments/militaries/agencies that work to increase our influence and power.
The vote I want is not the one taken while under the influence of mass 'hysteria'.I want the Legislature to DO IT'S JOB,fess up and explain how the 'bill' will be paid,and how the 'bill' will impact on other spending.
So much 'hate' for a young guy...I think your type of neobrownshirtcon jingoism is ruining the Republican Party.The comment I made about the "black child" was the epitome of the Bush machine tactics against McCain,telling Southern Primary voters that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi child was spawned from a black prostitute,that alone aside from the attacks on his Military service and mental capability should show you the charactor of a man that would take that BS and STILL stand behind HIS party.He knew that he could 'split' and didn't.You had to generalize and parrot out more of the same lame name-calling bS on him.
It used to be people could sit around and discuss cost/benefit behind politics and policy,now politics seems to be all about name-calling and jingoism,it(politics) is too exclusionary for my stomach these days.
It is apparent that you & I have entirely different views on where this country should be headed. Mine has little room for extra 'invented' rights, or for Senators like Russ who throw the Constitution away just to give their party an extra edge in the next campaign season... I also have no room for isolationisim of any kind, and would rather fight a new war every 10 years than get bushwhacked by another emerging-power (ala Japan) because we thought we'd be left alone if we left them alone...
Oops... Looked like a B at 2:36AM
"It is apparent that you & I have entirely different views on where this country should be headed."
Totally wrong again my young friend.
We have discussed nothing much about that subject.
We just have different views on how it should be done.There are many paths to the same goal.
One more thing , to say your a democrat or republican is a joke. Kerry and Bush are related to each other, went to the same college, are in the same secret satanic cult, and just so happen to be the ones with enough free money to puchase it. All leaders do bad things but its rare that one will do something great like trying to preserve the little freedom we have left no matter the cost. Maybe Feingold can see we have copied Nazi Germany actions to the letter and smells another holocaust, he is a jew! As for moore he makes me sick and thats all he is worth even talking about!
Hork1, I dunno what to say, except; you must wear your tinfoil shiny side up, while I wear mine shiny side down (I agree with the substance of what you're saying - 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other).
Dave, I don't know if my responses fall on deaf ears, you are willingly ignorant of American history, if you truly believe the party line, or all of the above. You're a nice guy. I like you, but your rehtoric can infuriate me! I mean no disrespect (despite how I come across sometimes), and would love tho bring you back from the "dark side" of the
I would like for you to respond to this, but only after careful study. If you can, destroy my arguments, but please don't give an opinion without a sound argument, backed up by a reading of the Constitution in context, statements by the FFs, Blackstone's Law, etc.
1. Your highlighting missed the fact that only congress has the legal right to suspend Habeus Corpus.
2. A. You get your history from TV or what? "Grave threat to public safety"? They wanted to be left alone. I guess the loss of revenue from tarrifs and possible continuation of the institution slavery was a "grave threat to public safety", huh?. And one more time: Lincoln attempted to resupply Fort Sumter after Seward promised a Confederate peace delegation that they would not resupply, that it would be vacated, and turned back over to the state. When the Fed Navy showed up with warships, they opened up on the fort to prevent what could very well have been an invasion of Charelston. An "attack [on] US installations" my ASS! Lincoln's actions were meant to provoke the first shot.
B. Expressly forbids? No doubt you'll quote the "supremecy" clause or Art10, Sec1, and I'll quote the 9th and 10th Amendments. Which one answers the question? The 9th and 10th were added specifically to answer your argument on supremecy, and a State no longer party to the compact can do whatever it pleases.
3. Hell. You must not have even read the document, let alone know what respect for it is, or was. It was Taney's respect for the Constitution that led Lincoln to order his arrest. He did nothing but issue a ruling on the suspension of HC and the fact that it was congress who held that power, not the Pres (again, as was his job - or can you not determine that Article 9 applys to the legislative and not the executive?). As far as Scott v. Sanford, a reading of the actual case shows that yes, Taney ruled in favor of of a citizen's property rights, and sent the case back to State courts. Previous CJ Marshall, ruled similarly on the sanctity of property rights, even over the rights of the individual States. Was he "treasonous" too?
4. A. Ilegally preserve - all one had to do was ask the CJSC (again, since that was his job)...oh wait: You couldn't because Lincoln, in violation of Art1, Sec 9, 2 ordered the suspension of HC, and then, in violation of Art 1, Sec 3, 9 had him arrested.
B. Not just "left over from the AoC". Try the DoI, the individual State constitutions, the KY and VA resolutions, BoR, and ratification debates (i.e. the Federalist and Anti- Federalist Papers).
5. A. Yep, the coining of money, and establishing the value thereof. Treasury does that. Where do you see "bank" in the Constitution?
B. So you are in favor of Federal subsidies of the rail and air transport systems. Thank you for your honesty, now find a Constitutional argument for it...but before you answer, read how the Founding Fathers thought of the phrases "to regulate Commerce" (tax, duty, and tarriff collection) and "promote the general welfare" (tax collection as a means to provide for the common defense) before replying.
6. At present? So you favor corporate welfare schemes, just not right now? No, they aren't legitimate (Constitutionally. see Art 1, Sec 8, 1). I, for one, can't stand the fact that folks who oppose NAFTA/GATT/FTAA argue for protective measures. MO is that both internationally and nationally-regulated "Free Trade" schemes are detrimental to competion. The fact some folks on the board call for it just means that they are ignorant on how economics actually work.
7. "Treasonous rebels...revolt...Constitutionally elected
8. You think it was a good thing.
9. The ends justify the
10. At the price of the spirit of liberty and 1/2 MILLION dead Americans.
11. (a) [guy with (R) next to his name] (b) you meant to say "neo-conservative policies", or is that line in your sig a lie? (c) A huge black mark on Russ' record, that I may not be able to overcome objection to. Funny how it's bad when a Dem does it, but you give Lincoln a pass for shutting down any media outlet that so much as disagreed with his war policies...
12. A. I also find it interesting that you ignore (as in this case), obfuscate, or apply modern day liberal defenitions to my Constituional arguments. Hmmm.
B. "No threat to the rest of us"? You really do get your Constituional info from the network news. See my end notes...
13. So... you've made an excuse but didn't answer the question.
Dave: You may like living in a Fabian Socialist fantasy, while deluding others as to what our country has become. I'm glad you vote, it's just too bad that you are not part of the informed electorate. As for what you think of the current state of the Union, and where will will head in the future...
...may your chains rest lightly upon you...