As it was a quote and the quote is in quotation marks, why would you think he did not say it?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump Delegate Says US Government Leaders May Need to Be Killed
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
As it was a quote and the quote is in quotation marks, why would you think he did not say it?
This David Riden character sounds pretty fringe, if the Mother Jones story is even correct. They have been wrong before.
In the meantime, SiriusXM has had to suspend Glenn Beck for agreeing (on air)with writer Brad Thor that some "patriot" may need to step up and "remove Trump from office" some time in the future. This is corroborated by the major news networks and Sirius.
“With the feckless, spineless Congress we have, who will stand in the way of Donald Trump overstepping his constitutional authority as president? If Congress won’t remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that".
Beck - “I would agree with you on that.”
LINK
In the meantime, SiriusXM has had to suspend Glenn Beck for agreeing (on air)with writer Brad Thor that some "patriot" may need to step up and "remove Trump from office" some time in the future. This is corroborated by the major news networks and Sirius.
“With the feckless, spineless Congress we have, who will stand in the way of Donald Trump overstepping his constitutional authority as president? If Congress won’t remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that".
Beck - “I would agree with you on that.”
LINK
Only the source says it was a "quote". They would lie or misrepresent in a heartbeat. Without corroboration, their "quote" is extremely suspect. No wonder you like'em.
You mean your non answer.
No, the enlightenment was like the matchmaker, the first date was representation in government, the proposition was direct action (Tea Party, boycotts), the acts themselves were the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses, the conception was disloyalty/cutting ties, the pregnancy and labor were the Revolutionary War, leading to the birth of the new nation.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I agree with what you said. Not what you meant to say, but what you said. We should exhaust resources THEN resort to an insurrection. It's going to happen sooner or later. I just hope it's not in my lifetime.
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
Was John Brown''s insurrection a correct course seeing as how, at least in his mind, he had exhausted all other means of eliminating slavery?
LOL.....RIGHT
Why not....dont you want to spare your children
Okay, back to this, as I said. It was from this thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...-to-oust-small-town-judge.99871/#post-2231203 .
You say you "disagree" with the ruling, but what brought that on was the fact that you said:
"A judge is supposed to judge by the law that is in force, even if it means they have to hold their nose while doing so. Remember the post where I said I know a person who was definitely guilty of 2nd degree murder but the judge had to free him because the police trampled his Miranda Rights.
We do not live in a theocracy. If a person cannot separate their religious beliefs from making judgments by how the law stands, they should not be a judge. As I said, this has to be very hard for some people."
So I asked you if the Dred Scott case was rightly decided, based on your quote, pointing out the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 2, clause 3, which says: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
So... would you 'hold your nose' and rule that Dred Scott cannot become a free man just because at the time he was in a state that did not permit slavery? Or would you rule this according to your beliefs?
It's not a matter of liking, or disliking, the law, especially going by your own quotation about that.
So you are saying that you believe the Dred Scott decision was the correct decision?
By the time of Dred Scott a number of states had outlawed slavery, thus if Dred Scott was in one of those states he was, or so it would seem free. To return him to slavery would violate that law. Thus it was a travesty of justice to force him to return him to a slave holding state and to be a slave again.
Even Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney did not use the Constitution as justification when he cast his vote to return Scott and that Scott was to be a slave. He refers to the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land and should never be used as law.
Rather Taney said:
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument...They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
Do you agree with Taney's statement?
That is not the point at all. The Fugitive Slave Clause was in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court had ruled before, as in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798), that states do not have the right to nullify the Constitution or federal law resolved to be constitutional. Now, again-- were you being truthful when you said a judge must rule according to law even if they have to 'hold their nose while doing so?" You clearly indicate you think the constitution should be nullified in this particular case-- which is a hard one, which is why I used it.
WHAT??? Taney referred to the US Constitution repeatedly in that decison:
http://www.umsl.edu/virtualstl/phase2/1850/events/perspectives/documents/taney.html
148 times, the DOI ten times. Still wonder about that delegate.
http://www.umsl.edu/virtualstl/phase2/1850/events/perspectives/documents/taney.html
148 times, the DOI ten times. Still wonder about that delegate.
Also, Judge Taney completely ignored the Amendment #5 of the Constitution, that became law on December 15, 1791, in his decision. Yes, a judge should rule by the law. But Taney did not. He, from his horrible statement, showed that he ruled his emotions and not by the law. So, Taney did what I say a judge should never do ... rule from his personal beliefs while ignoring the law.
Do you agree with his statement in his ruling?
Do you agree with his statement in his ruling below?
Taney's statement on African Americans:
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
Justice Curtis in his dissent agrees with me:
Curtis of Massachusetts, said this:
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Last edited:
No.
No.
And what did the Fugitive Slave Clause actually say, rather than what (if anything) it ought to mean?
So I answered your questions. Now you answer: Does the Fugitive Slave Clause require that a slave be not discharged from his master regardless of where either may be?
No, because it denied a person the due process of law. A person could be send to the South as a slave only be word of a white man without any due process in the courts. This the clause was invalid. The person accused was not allowed to speak any words in his own defense. He had no rights, no recourse. Thus, the clause was invalid.
Article #5 makes this very plain when it says: "No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Article 5 invalidates the fugitive clause.
Article 5 only prescribes how amendments are to be proposed and ratified, so that is not true. Apparently you mean Amendment 5. But there is no case I know in which that amendment was seen to invalidate the Fugitive Slave Clause. That amendment, in fact, raises a related but different question... could slave owners be deprived of their property [slaves] without due process of law; or, if ending slavery was a public good, must they receive compensation for their loss.
Anyway, you have nothing here to show the FSC was invalidated; you just make your own preferred statement about it... which means, ultimately, that you favor ruling according to your beliefs, not the letter of the law.
Yes, Amendment 5.
Of course it invalidated the Fugitive Slave Clause, see the quote below and the part I put in bold print. You cannot have an article saying that a person has no due process. That is exactly what was lawful under the FSC and then an amendment saying a person must have due process. That clearly invalidates the FSC. Thus the FSC is null and void. If not, then the Constitution contradicts itself and we know that is not possible.
From: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ound-nullification-of-the-fugitive-slave-act/
The most glaring constitutional problem with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was its denial of due process. A fugitive was returned south on the word of any white person. The accused was not even allowed to present evidence in his own defense. This clearly violates the Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Unless you want to argue black people weren’t “persons,” (and this is pretty much what the federal courts ultimately did) an accused fugitive had a right to an actual trial. As it stood, the Fugitive Slave Acts stripped all rights from a black person on the mere presumption he was a slave. He was presumed guilty and had no way to prove himself innocent.
The Bill of Rights was added to provide “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” and place additional restrictions on federal power. That means that even while exercising legitimate powers, the federal government cannot violate the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment trumps Article IV Sec. 2 and meant that an accused fugitive had a right to due process before being delivered back into bondage.
In fact, one of the driving forces behind personal liberty laws was the number of free blacks kidnapped and forced into slavery. Under the Fugitive Slave Act, they had no recourse. They started under the presumption of guilt, and the process made it impossible to prove otherwise. Northern states sought to remedy that evil.
What you quote is another opinion piece that just agrees with your own. And even that says "Unless you want to argue black people weren’t “persons,” (and this is pretty much what the federal courts ultimately did) an accused fugitive had a right to an actual trial." Thus, the rulings are contrary to what they are claiming...and remember, what this was your contention about ruling according to law "even if they have to hold their nose while doing so." But you continue to take positions according to your beliefs; your nose notwithstanding.
But I'm not going to say this 10th Amendment Center is a bad thing to be quoting. Some of its ideas may be useful today in same-sex marriage and choosing whatever public restroom. But can you see any correlation here with 'moral high points' between nullification of fugitive slave laws and these current conflicts?
But I'm not going to say this 10th Amendment Center is a bad thing to be quoting. Some of its ideas may be useful today in same-sex marriage and choosing whatever public restroom. But can you see any correlation here with 'moral high points' between nullification of fugitive slave laws and these current conflicts?