Herschel Walker Paid for Girlfriend’s Abortion, Report Says

Yes those ceding traitorous states had already decided they couldn't work with Abe, they took up arms against the federal Gov't, which was treason and punishable by death

 

If proven, I do not disagree with the potential for hypocrisy! As the title of the thread reads, Report Says!

But hey, if it is all true, he will fit right in with all the other politicians.

 

No they had not taken up arms against the federal government. They simply seceded.

Furthermore they had EVERY right of a state still. As evidenced by the fact their representatives were still required to vote. And they had every ability to sign the Corwin amendment.

 

You keep positing that as if you've shown proof that's what actually happened? Weird

Stop states from passing laws? LMAOROG. Where do you get this nonsense. Gov't goes to court to ENFORCE laws. Federal Gov't had over 300+ trials, it was up to the traitorous slave states to ask for enforcment of the laws. The federal Gov't did it's job. Simply because the traitors hated Abe was no reason to cede from the Union. Oh right "Northern agression" lol

 

Let’s assume for a moment that let’s say Trump got elected again. And the southern states decided they wanted to refuse black people the right to vote. Northern states take them to the scotus and they win. The southern states say we don’t care, we aren’t letting them vote. And the Federal Government led by trump does nothing to stop them.

What do you do?

 

No sir the federal government, specifically the executive branch, has a constitutional obligation to stop them from passing or at least enforcing unconstitutional laws. Even if that means they have to send a standing army in to stop them. As Filmore threatened. ESPECIALLY when those unconstitutional laws take away voting power from other states.

 

Weird


The South Seizes Federal Forts


...Capture of federal property and the decline of federal authority in the South prior to the Sumter crisis. When dealing with the secession movement scholars have focused nearly all of their attention on Charleston, South Carolina, the site of the only remaining federal presence in the Deep South when Lincoln took office. In doing so, historians have not considered how the secessionists’ earlier actions provoked war and shaped President Abraham Lincoln’s and Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s handling of the secession crisis. My research examines both how the Buchannan Administration’s policy allowed Deep South secessionists to seize federal property and the implications this had for the origins of the war.

Following Lincoln’s election many southerners believed that the “Black Republicans” had launched a deliberate plan to destroy slavery, reduce southern political power, and undermine state sovereignty. As many southerners saw it, secession alone was not enough to safeguard homes, family, slaves, and sovereignty from potential abolitionist violence. In hopes of insuring peaceful secession, preventing coercion, and possible slave insurrections southerners seized federal property within each state’s borders. This poster will include a map that illustrates all the locations of southern seizures from December 1860 to April 12, 1861. The map will document when, where, and who captured the public property. By mapping out the property captured by secessionists, the poster will demonstrate that despite southern political and military leaders insistence that their actions were peaceful, the capture of federal property were clearly acts of war.
https://aha.confex.com/aha/2016/webprogram/Paper18556.html


Or did you mean only when the traitors fired on Ft Sumpter?

 

HTF are they going to do that? Can't even do that today with red states and their BS abortion laws before SCOTUS's activists decisions

 

Oh right we don't have HISTORY to say that happened for over 100 years right?

 

Taking back YOUR OWN TERRITORY without a shot fired is not taking up arms. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.

Furthermore, once the federal government refuses to enforce a scotus order, not once but MULTIPLE times they are in breach of contract. Once they are in breach of contract then the contract which gave them the power to hold a states land for a fort, no longer exists. As such, those lands are ceded back to the state from whence they came.

 

The same way they enforced integration in schools. You send a standing army in to enforce the rules until the state gets it.

Not sure why you find that difficult to comprehend.

 

And occupied federal properties, whikle armed.

SCOTUS ruled cession wasn't legal, even in 1961!

 

The only time secession was brought before the court was 1868. The union didn’t even ATTEMPT to go to court to see if it was legal before the war because they knew they would lose. The same reason that they refused to give Jefferson Davis a trial. Because Taney told them he would have to rule in the South and Davis’ favor. So even though Davis was in prison and refused to be released without a trial, they refused to give him a trial and pardoned him instead.

 

All right this is nonsense, you and your traitorous justifications for the slavery states who for over 100+ years denied equal treatment in the CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa.

I've repeatedly asked for PROOF of your assertions the federal Gov't didn't act on the "slave act'. I've proven they did, ALL you have is more right wing BS and justifications for treason and "lost cause" BS

Federal property was ILLEGALLY taken and occupied, by armed traitors. The CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa had long since decided they weren't going to work with Abe, any rewriting of history you attempt isn't changing that!


SCOTUS said the contract was still in force BTW. Just like today

 

No you CONTINUOUSLY refuse to answer the question of whose responsibility is it to force a state to comply with a scotus decision.

You refuse to answer it because you KNOW the answer is the federal government. And you KNOW that you can’t defend the concept that the federal government did ANYTHING to enforce those decisions against the state. Which COMPLETELY undermines checks and balances and the ENTIRETY of the constitution.

If a state can just REFUSE to follow a scotus decision and the constitution and the federal government refuses to stop them because they’re on their side… what ****ing good is the constitution or the scotus?

 

Oh the Dredd Scott guy who said blacks were chatel. Davis was released on bail, BTW before the pardon

 

Yeah the Dred Scott guy who was still head of the SCOTUS lol

 

“Several notable Northern lawyers offered their free services to defend him in a treason trial, which Davis longed for. The government, however, never forced the issue—because, many believe, it feared that such a trial might establish that the original Constitution gave the states a right to secede. The case was finally dropped on December 25, 1868.”

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jefferson-Davis/Capture-and-imprisonment

 

Last f**kng time, I proved the federal Gov';t held over 300 trials to enforce the inhumane "slave act" trial" you have repeatedly pushed a premise they did not, yet can not show one link that shows your premise

Arguing from a false premise as if your premise is valid is BS and you know it. Laws are passed all the time that are unenforcable, you know that too

Now GFY if you can't or will not back up your premise for those traitorous CONfederate Southern States of AmeriKKKa

 

“On February 15, 1869, Jefferson Davis was scheduled to begin his trial in the United States District court in Richmond, Virginia. He was charged with treason against the United States for his part in leading the states in rebellion during the American Civil War, 1861-1865. But instead proceeding with the trial, federal prosecutors entered a “nolle prosequi,” or statement of decision not to prosecute.

Thirty-eight other treason indictments were dropped at this time as well, including the pending litigation against Robert E. Lee. All former Confederates not under those indictments had been mass pardoned by President Andrew Johnson the previous Christmas Day, and the February nolle proesqui order drew to a quiet conclusion any threat of legal action against anyone for their participation in the war against the United States.”

Why? Because they knew they would get their asses handed to them in court. Taney warned them of such.

 

Wtf are you talking about?

What you presented are the cases that those states ALLOWED TO GO TO TRIAL by not using the personal freedom laws to stop. Which yes the federal government returned most of those.

HOWEVER you’re completely ignoring the fact that THOUSANDS of writs were provided to those states for people who they KNEW where they were and refused to allow them to be captured under charges of kidnapping THROUGH those personal freedom laws that the scotus declared unconstitutional and the federal government refused to enforce.

 

Yep, he was released on bail, $100,000 as I said. Yep CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa guys were on SCOTUS still right? How did SCOTUS eventually rule on that secession thing?

 

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Taney was a vocal and vociferous opponent of slavery.

 

Oh so you are going to show PROOF of those thousands and the fedral Gov't refusal to enforce right? As well as the fines of $1,000 assessed against US marshalls who refused the writs?

That'll probe your posit?

 

"Taney believed that it was not the place of the Court or the Federal Government to remedy the issue and that it was the Constitutional right of the states to deal with slavery individually and gradually. Taney infamously delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ruling that African Americans could not be considered U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the U.S. territories."

Sure I don't know *shaking head* Only have a minor in history from Cal Poly