The Great Emancipator Said These ?

Same opinion. I drives me crazy to see somebody say they are a proud citizen of the USA and then drive away in a car with a Mexican flag sticker in the window.

If I am a proud citizen of the USA have ONE country and ONE flag. I have ancestors from different parts of the world. You will find one flag in my home. If I was Native American I would not have the tribes flag, I would not live on a reservation that is a seperate nation apart from the USA. I would choose to be a citizen of the USA.

 

The goverment flys flags of countys we are not currently at war with as a sign of respect. They fly lower then ours. But if I was an American Citizen with Brittish ancestory I would not fly a Brittish flag on my car. It would be the Stars and Stripes for me.

 

I knew debating against the Reb flag on a Baptist board would be intense. The debate has been alot more civil then I expected though, thank you. Other then the wish of one poster to lynch me.

Jane Doe did not invent abortion. But when she chooses to have one she is just as guilty as the person who did. If it was in my power I would end the practice of abortion immediatly. If it was in your power to end the practice of abortion would you do it imediatly or give it time for a different means of resolution?

And the reason for secession was slavery. You can not take slavery out of the argument because the reason the south wanted the right to succed was so they could retain slavery.

Both sides used the term American becasue that is the name of our continet. Canidans are North Americans. So that is confusing. The govermet we live in is United States. That is the goverment the Confederate states rebeled against. They wanted a new goverment that was Confederate. The United States goverment is not set up as a goverment that gives %100 power to the states to govern themselfs. The US goverment retains the right to over rule the states on certan issues. They belived (so do I) slavery is one of those issues.

And to beat you to it. Yes the US goverment has expanded these issues to far and try to over rule the states when they should not. But lets keep it to the civil war times.

But not the United States. That is the goverment you now are a part of. Look at the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Says nothing about America. It is the UNITED STATES.

Like you said "Most of the law making" Enslavement of citizens falls under the federal power.

So you are ok if California, New York, and 20 other states say it is ok to kill babies and 10 dont make any laws either way and the rest out law it. If you were elected to congress or president you would do nothing on the federal level to try to stop it?

If you were a Supreme Court Justice you would not rule against abortion?

In most instances I agree. Clearly I do not when it comes to taking lives (abortion) or enslaving people. I also support Ikes use of federal troops to desegregate schools.

The state constitutions were not protecting the rights of their citizens, clearly. Just as the state goverments are not protecting the unborn right now.

That is why we are debating, to try and convince each other to see it that way.
Nobody likes to be told what to do. But sometimes the teller is right.

[SIZE=+1]

Jane Fonda could have been brought to trail. She was not, but should have been. The leaders and goverment of the Conf. goverment should have been brought to trial. The avg. troop should not have. That is what is done in most all wars, like with Germany and the Nuremburg trials. Both Tokyo Rose (one of them) and Axis Sally along with 10 others were convicted of treason after WW2.

[/SIZE]

The analogy is good. The United States goverment was in place here in America and ruled it as a collection of states that have power to govern themselfs if their laws do not interfear or contridict the fed goverment. The Conf. goverment rebelled against the United goverment and attempted to overthrow it. Had they been sucessfull they would have been a seperate country to the south of the USA.

Citizens of this country have two goverments. A state goverment and a federal goverment. True they did not rebel against their state goverment. But they did rebel against their fed gov.

If you only consider your self a citizen of your state goverment then why fly the stars and stripes at all. Why not just your state flag.

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Do you agree with this pledge?

 

The point was, as an example, that we don't view the British flag - once a clear enemy of ours - as an enemy flag. The British are among our best allies today. The British flag is not a threat to this nation. Why then should we view one of our own people as such? The states are all reunited into one nation. The old CSA battle flag is not a threat to this nation.

Flying the old CSA battle flag is nothing more than a sign of respect for our ancestors who fought in that war for what they believed was right and so of which I agree was right. It's part of our history and we don't need to blot it out or re-write it into something purely evil to appease those who might be a little bit offended by it. It means different things to different people. Those that don't like it have to tolerate those that do. We don't have to put away everything that someone doesn't understand or like. The old CSA battle flag is not a affirmation that we support slavery today or even would have then nor that we desire to re-fight that war nor that we don't love this country to the point of being willing to die for it. Many of us have proved that far beyond mere words of an oath and more so that many who complain so much about the flag.

The point was not about how foreign flags are flown here or whether or not a person should or should not fly from the nation of their ancestry. That's a different issue and one on which we may agree at least in part and for which I have very relevant personal experiences.

I participate in special memorial ceremonies where the flag of the country from whence some of my family came is flown along with our own. Tears are always shed at those events in memory of all those who died fighting there, or trying to escape to this nation, or remain lost and unaccounted for, as well as those of this nation who died along with them. These ceremonies are started with the national anthem of this country and a salute by old veterans of both to its flag followed by the same for the old country. You won't find too many more patriotic groups around.

 

Yes, I do, and I also happen to know it was written in 1892 - after the civil war and reconstruction - and revised in 1954. I even grew up reciting it every morning at school. I've also taken several oaths of allegiance since. I have, so far, tried to live up to them all by my actions.

Regardless, I still don't have a problem with old CSA battle flag. It is what I've previously written that it is.

 

Yes, that's true and I recognize that I'm right on this one but probably won't convince you! But we'll try to remain civil and probably find many other issues on which to agree completely.

 

There are lots of things I'm not okay with but still believe aren't within the right of the federal government to regulate. The problem with permitting them to do so is that it never stops expanding and governments tend to regulate that which is easy avoiding that which is difficult especially when the problems are far away. The states are best suited to deal with all the issues I listed. They are closer to the problems and the people. They should deal with them correctly but there will be short comings. The states - their citizens - have to take charge of their own problems and deal with them.

The question about the Supreme Court is a perfect example of an issue that should never have been decided by it since it overturned so many state laws to the contrary. That's the fallacy with relying on the federal government to solve all problems. It - the federal government - is just not always right. At least of the states decide you have the option to find one in which the laws suit you better. That, of course, has nothing to do with what I believe is the right choice.

 

I think we are getting too much into issues of black and white when there is really a great shade of gray.

What was a young Mississippi boy to do? It's 1862. Let's say he's 18, fresh off the farm, having been drafted into the local regiment, but he doesn't really care too much for this war. His family, being relatively poor, never owned slaves. His state government now claims allegiance to the CSA. Should he just submit to execution for treason against his state/new country? Should he fight with his friends and family from Mississippi? If he runs, he'll never make it to the North. Even if he did, he may just be captured as a spy. Besides, if he does, his family will likely be shamed. He knows he might die in combat, and he resents the fact that the rich planters with 20+ slaves aren't being drafted to fight for this cause they championed. Meanwhile, he knows that his family farm is going to suffer because he won't be there to plow. He feels that he has no choice but to go to war.

If he fights, is he this horrible enemy? Is he this treasonous man deserving of a traitor's death?

 

That's a good point and it's similar to what's happened in many nations over time.

 

Does all of that extend to the Nazi flag with the swastika. If somebody was proud of their german heratige would you support them flying a Nazi flag in the window of their car.

 

I believe Roe v. Wade is wrong not only because it decided a state issue but because it violates a constitutional issue. Depriving the unborn child to live.

But you did not answer my question and it it the question, I was most interested in.

If you were a Supreme Court Justice and the issue of abortion came up, would you rule against it, or refuse to hear the case altogether?

 

Individual troops are generaly not punished for their goverments actions after a war. The punishment is reserved for the goverment officials and leaders. Unless the troop did something extra horrable during the war.

The german troops were left to return to their homes after surender, same with Japan.

 

This really doesn't have anything to do with the CSA flag issue but out of respect to your question I'll expand my answer: The problem with asking for a federal ruling is that, by so doing, you concede their right to decide. If you like the answer things are great. If you don't then that's the end of it. It is better to let the people decide issues in their own states so that at least then we have choices to make. Our system of government divided powers and responsiblities between the states and the national government with the intent being one of relatively limited - but extremely important - scope for the national government. Issues regarding the daily lives of people were intended to remain with the states. Therefore, for that reason alone - and not the issue of abortion itself - I suspect that I would probably rule that the federal government had no juridiction over the states in the matter. If, however, we had only one government serving all our purposes and of which all others were merely administrative sub-divisions then I would rule against abortion. Abortion is a terrible sin. There are, of course, problems with this approach as there are with all of mankind's efforts to have perfect justice in all things. In the end it is only God's laws that are perfect yet a government mankind claiming such as their sole basis has also been proved imperfect and subject to much corruption. The situation today is different because the right to decide the issue has been placed into the federal courts. If this were not so, then Roe vs. Wade would never have come to pass and many states would have kept their right to establish and enforce law against abortion. Those, by the way, would probably have included all those rebellious Southern states about which flags we are so concerned. Instead their people are forced to abide by a ruling they don't like.

 

Are you proposing some kind of national flag laws or are you just asking about personal likes and dislikes?

 

I have no doubt that Christian men can be wrong. I am sure there were Christians fighting for Germany in WW2. Now that we are useing the term USA instead of America. There is no doubt that these two individuals were enemies of the USA. They waged war against the USA. They fought for a goverment called the CSA.

In what way could they not be enemies of the USA?

They fought for their state and the Confederate States of America. Their convictions have immoral roots.

The flag in question stands for a group of states who went to war with the USA to form their own goverment. They wanted to form their own goverment for the purpose of keeping slavery. Prior to the federal goverment trying to limit slavery they submited to all kinds of federal rules and regulations with out trying to break away. They paid taxes and sent young men to fight for the USA. It was the issue of slavery that made them want to break off. It is no wonder the conf flag has come to reprisent what it does to some groups. I could make a far greater case for the swastika. It had a tradition for hundereds of years before Hittler used it.

 

I am only wanting to make sure you are consistent in your arguments. You are. I feel that issues of civil liberties fall under the federal goverment to decide. You are avocating a confederacy for our country. It was set up a a union.

In a union the federal goverment has far more power over the states then in a confederacy.

Obviously I like the union, eventhough I concede it is abused at times.

 

Personal likes and dislikes. I support freedom of speech and belief. If the goverment wanted to outlaw the conf flag, I would be one of its loudest critics.

No matter how distasteful to me, people have the right to believe what they want and fly whatever banner they want. The KKK has the right to march, fred phelps has the right to speak, the neo nazi has the right to protest and others have the right to fly a conf. flag.

I also do not support anti flag burning laws.

One of the reasons this country is great.

 

Well, DeeJay, I know a little bit about a few things but I'm not even an amateur in Constitutional law! However, I have stayed in Holiday Inn Express recently and do have some good references to consult!

I do know we don't have a "confederacy" and I'm not advocating a return to that situation such as existed before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation. The name of the that initial confederacy was The United States of America. Certainly the Constitution did significantly modify and increase the power of the federal government because the Articles of Confederation were lacking in many key areas necessary to have an effective national government. It's a better deal in many ways but it has been abused and many elements of original intent have been lost including the rights of states. The Constitution was made the supreme law of the land and the states were no longer sovereign in their former sense afterwards. The Constitution applied to all individual citizens as well as to the states unlike the Articles of Confederation. There's no doubt about any of that!

The Constitution did not abolish the power of the states to govern themselves so long as such governing acts were not forbidden under the Constitution. It even explicitly prevents the federal government from unilaterally redefining the boundaries of states by subdividing them or combining them clearly being just one indication that the states retained a measure of autonomy albeit not to the extent they had under the Articles of Confederation. It remained up to the people of the states to decide what they wanted in their states for all matters not specifically defined by the national Constitution. Today we have the idea all states have to have the same answer to every question and if some think differently than others they have to be forced into submission.

Also, relative to the big issue, consider that at the time the Constitution was first written slavery was not forbidden at all and it even recognized that slaves which ran away to another state had to be returned by such state. The amendment forbidding slavery came in 1865 at the end of the civil war. So that makes the whole nation guilty of condoning slavery at one time or another and not just those "Rebels" in the South doesn't it? Likewise, the Constitution does not directly address the typical range of crimes against persons - murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. - that are covered by state law written, enforced, and judged by state governments according to their constitutions. It does not claim that those matters were to be regulated by the federal government. It did not do away with the state governments nor make them administrative units of the federal government.

Since those days the federal government has done nothing but grow into a huge monster churning out endless volumes of laws and regulations on nearly every subject and, for what it can't do legally it does by attaching strings to appropriations requiring states to follow federal requirements just to get their own people's money back. I'm certain this latter practice would be completely unacceptable to all the original Constitutional law experts - the founders who wrote the document - and would greatly reduce the power of the imperial government in Washington if were put to its rightful end.

I do advocate that we get the federal government back into its proper little box - and I mean much smaller - and back under the control of the people and that we shift the burden of solving our problems more to the states - and really the people themselves - where such matters belong.