I'm acquainted with a few Harvard J.D.s, and, discrediting a common misconception that some entertain, I have observed that every one of them can tie his shoe laces. (Although, to be conscientiously circumspect, Edgar does fancy loafers.)
Andrew Jackson signed a very long proclamation regarding secession on December 10, 1832. The bottom line: once in, always in. "Proclamation 43—Regarding the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina December 10, 1832" http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=67078&st=secession&st1= Any President can use its basic logic to slap down States that want to establish sanctuary cities for illegal aliens or do anything that violates federal laws. It's a masterpiece in federalism doctrine.
I've never heard anyone put it that way. I'm VERY doubtful that he was intending to say "If Jackson had lived another 16 years" I guess I'm questioning your intellectual honesty.
States have very limited rights under the Constitution. Once a federal law is in place they have to comply.
So you admit you didn't care when Obama screwed up something every kid in elementary school knows? So you're a hypocrite? /golfclap
Of course, I didn't comment one way or the other about your hoary fixation. It just fails as a desperate diversion from trumpery.
My favorite part was when he said, "No one ever asks why we had a civil war". By my count, here are about 600 books on the matter. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=why+did+the+us+have+a+civil+war&tbm=shop&spf=402 Idiot.
Like I said, God gave instructions on how to treat servants and slaves, but in no way does anything you present state slavery is God's will. God never interferes with any culture. God's will is freedom. Always.
You have it backwards. The Constitution was written to expressly limit what the Federal Government could do - expressed as enumerated powers - and the rest was to be left to the States, and the People.
Non-sequitur. There is nothing you can teach me about American history, to be certain. Perhaps you could lend a hand in arrogance; it appears you excel. No one is contesting that the Federal Government loves passing laws. Only liberals happen to think that each one of them abides wholly by the Constitution.
Federal Law. Perhaps you need help understanding the most basic point I've made: it isn't in regards to what is. If you simply accept what is, you will accept all manner of injustice. This is about what was meant, and what should be. This is a discussion of ideas, and not of what is simply the reality, regardless its legitimacy. And any time you wish to compare IQ, sport, you are welcome.
I've read enough of your posts (and the fact you nom de plume yourself as some sort of genius tells us an awful lot about you) to know you imagine yourself way beyond your shown intellectual capabilities. You get credit for knowing Federal law rules supreme. D- for engaging in nebulous sophistry.
Perhaps your smarmy pejorative attitude needs adjusting. And perhaps you could - for once in your liberal life - exercise some intellectual honesty, and cede that I'm not attempting to argue what you're attempting to claim I am arguing. By definition - by Gawd's admission - each Federal Law passed further erodes the power of the States. If you believe that the Constitution intended that to be so, you are, without a doubt, a liberal. That is to say: you really have no intention of defending what the Constitution's primary charter was: to limit the power of the Federal Government.
You fail to keep the post topical. I've attempted to point out an argument, and you failed to understand it, and were desperate to make it personal. The problem is you.
Maybe you should read Andrew Jackson's Proclamation on this issue for another viewpoint. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=67078&st=secession&st1=
If they had wanted a limited Federal Government they would have kept the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. If you want a limited Federal Government then you should toss the Constitution into the trash can and write a new one that suits your philosophy.
