Decorated Army surgeon refuses to obey all military orders

#26
#26
I love arguing this with pro-confederate people.

Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Allaince, or Confederation;grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money;...No state shall, without the Consent of Congress,...keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement of Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Once they had seceded, their actions were unconstitutional. So the Union had an absolute right to fight them. The South may also have been guilty of treason according to Article 3, section 3, but you should look at that yourself and decide.

According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the US Gov't can "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

I understand this to mean that if a rebellion occurs, the "Union" can repress it. I would consider the South seceding to be an Insurrection.
 
#29
#29
OrangeEmpire said:
That is quite a large leap........... I in no way would cheapn what the founders did by comparing them to this twit.
Click to expand...

They are great men today,only because they went against the establishment then and questioned authority. They were normal people that stood up to a tyrant.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin
 
#32
#32
CountVolcula said:
They are great men today,only because they went against the establishment then and questioned authority. They were normal people that stood up to a tyrant.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin
Click to expand...

There is no way you can honestly compair a twit surgeon to the founders.

Comparing the British gov't to Obama..... really?

:banghead2:
 
#35
#35
OrangeEmpire said:
There is no way you can honestly compair a twit surgeon to the founders.

Comparing the British gov't to Obama..... really?

:banghead2:
Click to expand...
Founding fathers comparison baffles me.

Obama is far more liberal than anyone in the British gov't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
BigPapaVol said:
Founding fathers comparison baffles me.

Obama is far more liberal than anyone in the British gov't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I mean, have I missed GIs going to peoples homes, looting......... shooting people in the street......

I mean, I hate healthcare and all but I don't think we have it as bad as the colonist.
 
#38
#38
OrangeEmpire said:
I love arguing this with pro-confederate people.

Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Allaince, or Confederation;grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money;...No state shall, without the Consent of Congress,...keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement of Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Once they had seceded, their actions were unconstitutional. So the Union had an absolute right to fight them. The South may also have been guilty of treason according to Article 3, section 3, but you should look at that yourself and decide.

According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the US Gov't can "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

I understand this to mean that if a rebellion occurs, the "Union" can repress it. I would consider the South seceding to be an Insurrection.
Click to expand...

I understand that and I'm not pro confederate.

When the U.S. government disobeys the Constitution then what obligates its citizens to comply?
 
#41
#41
CountVolcula said:
Think what you wish!!

Most people that were loyal to the crown thought the same thing about Jefferson, Washington, Franklin.
Click to expand...

The crown wasn't American. We are. Dude is an American officer. His president is American. He needs to act like an officer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
The crown wasn't American. We are. Dude is an American officer. His president is American. He needs to act like an officer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

True!! There is better ways to go about it, but he believes in what he is doing and he knows the consequence of his actions and is willing to take that risk.
 
#43
#43
CountVolcula said:
True!! There is better ways to go about it, but he believes in what he is doing and he knows the consequence of his actions and is willing to take that risk.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said he's stupider than bold.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
Also, at the time of the 1st CC, we were not an independent nation. We were an English colony that felll under crown rule. Those men were going against crown law and were subject to hang for treason. We did not gain our true independence until the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
 
#46
#46
CountVolcula said:
Also, at the time of the 1st CC, we were not an independent nation. We were an English colony that felll under crown rule. Those men were going against crown law and were subject to hang for treason. We did not gain our true independence until the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
Click to expand...

But independence from the crown is what they were after. If this guy's after that, he's needs to be put under Leavenworth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
But independence from the crown is what they were after. If this guy's after that, he's needs to be put under Leavenworth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that is what he's after. More to show that sometimes you have to take a risk for what you believe in, regardless of the consequences.

All he wishes is to seek the truth.

What would happen if he was right?
 
#50
#50
CountVolcula said:
I'm not saying that is what he's after. More to show that sometimes you have to take a risk for what you believe in, regardless of the consequences.

All he wishes is to seek the truth.

What would happen if he was right?
Click to expand...
Seems an absurd sword on which to fall. Which principle is he leaning on here?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top