Fifth Amendment a "firewall"

[ScottDLS]

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.

You are, of course, correct. I got a little over zealous.

Still, when Lincoln was elected, the southern Democrats saw the writing on the wall and that lead to the Civil War. Slavery was not the ONLY issue, but it was a big one.

Arguably the main one. I never bought the "mean old Northern businessmen and tariffs".

[OldCurlyWolf]

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.

You are, of course, correct. I got a little over zealous.

Still, when Lincoln was elected, the southern Democrats saw the writing on the wall and that lead to the Civil War. Slavery was not the ONLY issue, but it was a big one.

Arguably the main one. I never bought the "mean old Northern businessmen and tariffs".

ScottDLS,
You should have "Bought" it. It is true.

It is also arguable that the "War of Northern Aggression" would not have happened without the North attacking the south. It is a truth that although there is a DIRECTED verdict by the SCOTUS that the South couldn't secede, it is also true that the members of the court who so voted were traitors to the constitution. Logic dictates that any singularity or group that voluntarily joins a larger group also has the inate ability to leave that group.

[ScottDLS]

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.

You are, of course, correct. I got a little over zealous.

Still, when Lincoln was elected, the southern Democrats saw the writing on the wall and that lead to the Civil War. Slavery was not the ONLY issue, but it was a big one.

Arguably the main one. I never bought the "mean old Northern businessmen and tariffs".

ScottDLS,
You should have "Bought" it. It is true.

It is also arguable that the "War of Northern Aggression" would not have happened without the North attacking the south. It is a truth that although there is a DIRECTED verdict by the SCOTUS that the South couldn't secede, it is also true that the members of the court who so voted were traitors to the constitution. Logic dictates that any singularity or group that voluntarily joins a larger group also has the inate ability to leave that group.

Logic may dictate so, but the Constitution doesn't (provide a mechanism for secession). The Union was worth preserving and ultimately slavery was doomed, but the Civil War got it done faster and to our Nation's benefit.

I really don't see anything noble about Southern gentry sending hundreds of thousands of their poor white countrymen to fight and die for a system built on slavery to benefit the elite. They were the traitors by any stretch. There were good men on both sides, but the South's ultimate cause was not just, which I like to think is why they lost.

[rotor]

This is a quote from the senator
"Yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there? If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman — the shooter — in Orlando"

He was a real gentleman! Killed 49 people and we call him a gentleman. How stupid are we that we elect people like this? As I kick myself in the butt for even asking.

[ScottDLS]

I prefer the term "perp" or "mook" or "thug" like on Law and Order on TV!

[Jim Beaux]

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, two years after the American Civil War started, but your point is still valid.

You are, of course, correct. I got a little over zealous.

Still, when Lincoln was elected, the southern Democrats saw the writing on the wall and that lead to the Civil War. Slavery was not the ONLY issue, but it was a big one.

Arguably the main one. I never bought the "mean old Northern businessmen and tariffs".

It was about economics- northern businessmen, trade policy and the $ bottom line.

Manufacturing required skilled labor, whereas agriculture needed cheap labor.

Trade between the south and Europe was bypassing the manufactures in the industrial northern states. South shipped cotton and Europe return the ships with manufactured goods.

The more populated northern states held congressional power and used it to pass trade laws that would benefit them-thus the almost 50% tariffs targeting European/Southern trade. (and forcing the south into buying northern implements.) The south fought the tariffs and the north relented only to once again pass new tariffs (this went on for decades).

The south was being governed by the whims of the northern interests.

The north then used the issue of slavery as a convenient ploy-you can bet if slavery was a significant addition to the bottom line the north wouldnt have been so 'morally' against it.

The Confederates were winning the war. So in an effort to ignite a slave rebellion. In desperation, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a war strategy. He did not free slaves in the neutral states, as he was trying to maintain favorable relationships.

Lincoln wrote -

“I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”

Not a word about the inhumanity & immorality about slavery-so just what was the issue?

BTW Lincoln offered to keep slavery if the Confederates would stay in the union.

[JALLEN]

Part of the due process problem is the pesky notion that one must do the crime and be convicted on evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, before suffering a penalty.

Imposing a penalty before one actually does the crime is very tricky. I have no doubt the Communists formerly known as Democrats will come up with something both novel and imaginative, with all sorts of advantages while sweeping rhe enormous disadvantages under rugs. It's the modern "flexible" view of the "living Constitution" which holds that we must interpret the provisions to solve modern problems unknown to the Founders.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sen. Joe Manchin should be impeached. Any U.S. Senator that could make a statement like that about the Fifth Amendment is not fit to hold the office. Unfortunately, the impeachment process is never used, just as people who purger themselves on the witness stand are never prosecuted.

Chas.

[joe817]

Sen. Joe Manchin should be impeached. Any U.S. Senator that could make a statement like that about the Fifth Amendment is not fit to hold the office. Unfortunately, the impeachment process is never used, just as people who purger themselves on the witness stand are never prosecuted.

Chas.

My little list is growing rapidly.

[ScottDLS]

Can you impeach a Senator? I thought they had to be voted out by 2/3rds of their colleagues only. I guess that's semantic whether you call it impeachment.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome (Senator)? -Henry II

[bblhd672]

Sen. Joe Manchin should be impeached. Any U.S. Senator that could make a statement like that about the Fifth Amendment is not fit to hold the office. Unfortunately, the impeachment process is never used, just as people who purger themselves on the witness stand are never prosecuted.

Chas.

Yeah - if anyone up in DC had the intestinal fortitude to do so.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

According to a quick and dirty google search;

At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office. This oath-taking dates to 1789, the first Congress; however, the current oath was fashioned in the 1860s, by Civil War-era members of Congress.
The current oath was enacted in 1884:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The public swearing-in ceremony consists of Representatives raising their right hands and repeating the oath of office.

It is apparent Senator Manchin does not take his oath seriously......