Pssst. MS, the civil war is over.....

[Ms Tree]

Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

The Sons of Confederate Veterans has launched the campaign to recognize Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest on a specialty license plate.

Nah, they are not racist. Not one bit. And they wonder why the South has the reputation it does?

 

[delldude]

Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest


Nah, they are not racist. Not one bit. And they wonder why the South has the reputation it does?

So only 'good' history goes in the books?

 

[dapoes]

So only 'good' history goes in the books?

No.... only liberal revisionist history.

 

[southwind]

Pretty lame how the Libs think the Civil War was "Only" about slavery !

"Why Did the American Civil War Start?"

"One of the key issues, in fact probably one of the major issues that led to the American Civil War was the dispute over the rights of the individual states. Not being too far removed from the war against Britain that created the independent United States themselves, it is likely that the mindset of being able to chart one's own political, social, and economic future still existed in the individual states, all of whom were controlled to some extent by the central federal government."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/136319/why_did_the_american_civil_war_start.html

 

[Ms Tree]

Not sure what article you folks read but ..

- all history is in the books.
- not all history or grand wizards need to be celebrated.

 

[Ms Tree]

I love how people show their ignorance. By trying to imply that slavery had little or nothing to do with the civil war.

 

[southwind]

I love how people show their ignorance. By trying to imply that slavery had little or nothing to do with the civil war.

Never implied that slavery had little or nothing to do with the Civil War. I said "Slavery" wasn't the only reason !

I too, also love how people show their ignorance by thinking and believeing, slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the Civil War ! :blink:

 

[jimntx]

Excuse me, the States' Rights argument for the Civil War was the polite parlor term for "they are trying to ruin me by ending slavery and making me pay my field hands." If the slavery issue were not there, there would have been no Civil War.

In the 1950's and 60's when I was growing up in Alabama, the States Rights argument was raised again when the Federal government said that black people have the right to vote unimpeded, sit in the front of the bus, live wherever they want and can afford, drink out of the clean water fountain--all kinds of horrific intervention in the private affairs of the individual states. Any time "States Rights" has been invoked, there has always been an undercurrent of racism attached to it.

If it weren't for the race issue, we would all still be dithering about the Federal Government deficit much as we do today whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power. And states like Arizona would still be passing meaningless laws that say the state has the right to ignore any Federal law it doesn't agree with. But, we wouldn't be going to war over any of it. The legal precedent that Federal law supercedes state law has been well established for quite a long time at the SCOTUS level.

 

[delldude]

The legal precedent that Federal law supercedes state law has been well established for quite a long time at the SCOTUS level.

"The Sleeping Giant Has Reawakened"

As it turns out, James Madison was apparently right. The states have in fact started combining to oppose federal intrusions on their authority, and this growing movement is now becoming a focal point all over the country. Governor Pete Wilson of California recently asserted that "it's time to set the states free and to let the people reclaim control over their destiny..For years, congressional liberals have tried to impose their will on the nation..Well, they should study their early American history and remember what happened to the last imperial government that handed down edicts and ignored the will of the people. If Washington continues to treat the states like colonies, then it will seem that [the November 1994 elections were] just the Tea Party, and 1996 will be the real revolution.

And what of 2008?

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar95nl.html

You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/state-sovereignty-movement-quietly-growing/

 

[jimntx]

Oh please. A website that contains recommendations from Glenn Beck! That is supposed to be some kind of authoritative source of information? Some of us prefer to think for ourselves and at least appear to have attended school and learned something along the way.

 

[eolesen]

And states like Arizona would still be passing meaningless laws that say the state has the right to ignore any Federal law it doesn't agree with. But, we wouldn't be going to war over any of it. The legal precedent that Federal law supercedes state law has been well established for quite a long time at the SCOTUS level.

Meaningless?.... Now *there's* some ignorance to go with your morning donut & coffee....

Show me where the AZ law was contradicting Federal law, Jim. It's contradicting Federal *practice* but as I see it, it is the exact opposite -- it aims to allow local and state law enforcement to enforce Federal law since the Feds have essentially abrogated their responsibility to enforce the immigration laws already on the books.

If Federal law always supercedes state law, then why does California have its own set of higher emission standards for vehicles?....

 

[delldude]

Oh please. A website that contains recommendations from Glenn Beck! That is supposed to be some kind of authoritative source of information? Some of us prefer to think for ourselves and at least appear to have attended school and learned something along the way.

You and your chief self thinker have trashed this country into oblivion.

 

[Ms Tree]

If Federal law always supercedes state law, then why does California have its own set of higher emission standards for vehicles?....

That's easy. CARB predates EPA so they had seniority along with a hand full of other states.

 

[jimntx]

You and your chief self thinker have trashed this country into oblivion.

No, the financial and deficit mess we are in was created by your hero, Shrub.

 

[Veritas]

If Federal law always supercedes state law, then why does California have its own set of higher emission standards for vehicles?....

That's because Section 209{b} of the Clean Air Act specifically grants states that adopted emissions standards before March 30, 1966 a special dispensation to enact more stringent vehicle emissions standards. Other states may also choose to follow those stricter standards.