Is it Constitutional?

Can't answer a simple question?

 

==From England's viewpoint, the United States was in rebellion. It was not until after the War that England acknowledged the United States as a free and independent nation. The United States did not recognize the Confederate States of America, viewing it as rebellion.

==Abraham Lincoln won the electoral college which, according the U.S. Constitution, is how the Presidential election is determined. President Lincoln was President, if southerners did not like that they should have worked to change that. Succession was not a legitimate option.

==I have to laugh every time I read/hear that statement. It is so very misleading. People say that slavery was not the major issue and claim that states rights were the issue. However, what such people ignore, is the issue the states rights argument centered around Slavery! The South was concerned about Lincoln's policy on slavery. That is why they pulled out when they did. Yes, states rights was the issue. What was the states rights debate about? Slavery. Did the Federal Government have the authority to determine what states/territories could/could not have slaves. Trying to discount the role of slavery in the Civil War is a historically erroneous position.

Was slavery the only issue? No. But it was central to the division in the nation.

 

The difference in a revolution and a civil war, is if the rebellious territories are successful in their attempt to break away.

 

The purpose of the war of 1776 was to break away, not to change the form of government of the British Empire thus a civil war.

The purpose of the French Revolution was to change the form of government of the French empire thus a revolution.

The purpose of Lincoln's War was to change the form of government of the combined sovereign American states to a single American state thus a revolution. "United States" meant "United Sovereign Nations."

 

Tell that to the guy who doesn't have a car to get to work...

Or to the grocery store...

Or to the doctor...

Or to take his kids to school...

Or to visit his elderly mother living all alone with no one to care for her.

Wow, a new car may be far more basic than a nationalized, tax and spend, rationed healthscare system. :tongue3:

 

I rode 250cc-500cc motorcycles to work and for errands for most of 30 years, probably 10% of the cost of driving a car.

Where do you live, that you have to drive your kids to school?

 

We aren't talking about me.

You brought up "general welfare".

Most people already have insurance so why does the exception work for you when it comes to health care but not automobile ownership?

 

He probably means used to as in the 1950's and '60's. Not way back then.

 

Yes, way back then! Lincoln's War was about federal control over the states.

>Most people already have insurance so why does the exception work for you when it comes to health care but not automobile ownership?

At least in Washington State, the problem is that half the cars are NOT insured and people must pay big bucks for "uninsured motorist insurance." If the auto insurance law is not going to be enforced then it makes better sense to scrap the liability insurance law and let every person buy insurance to protect himself, not other people. Put a signs on the highways, "enter at your own risk."

If one wants to compare the auto and health situations . . . close down all public hospitals and go 100% private.