DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**FYvWldC0** · 04-20-2010, 07:08 PM

OK, i am still looking when i have time. There was a NY times article from the early 1860's, discussing how Lincoln had jumped the gun by not providing for the issue to resolve. The article represents a large movement at the time because of what he did.

Link? What are you referring to here? Much Lincoln did was questionable and was debated at the time.
I realize that this is from a "constitutional purist" point of view.

I think reconstruction is a whole 'nuther topic.

But, i will ask you: if Lincoln calling Congress to meet De Facto was ok, then what happened with the original 13th Amendment? Why did they delete it, pretending it never existed? Non Sequitur. WTF does the President's ability to call Congress into session, which is clearly set out in the duties and powers of the President have to do with an Amendment that failed to get enough states to pass it. (I assume you are referring to the No American can have a title of Nobilty amdendment?) Virgina may have passed it but if they failed to properly communicate that to the State Department that means they didn't pass it. I don't call it deleted. I call it mishandled. Remember that back in the early 19th century Politicians were part timers. The state or federal governments only met a few weeks out of the year. You had people that otherwise had real jobs stopping to do the work of government. They f'd up. It happens. Besides it's a pointless amendment. Who cares if a private citizen wants to become a Knight or some such thing. If they run for office the people upon finding that out can choose to not elect them. And once in office it is prohibited anyway. So I don't see the point.

04-20-2010, 07:08 PM	#5
FYvWldC0 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 535 Senior Member	OK, i am still looking when i have time. There was a NY times article from the early 1860's, discussing how Lincoln had jumped the gun by not providing for the issue to resolve. The article represents a large movement at the time because of what he did. Link? What are you referring to here? Much Lincoln did was questionable and was debated at the time. I realize that this is from a "constitutional purist" point of view. I think reconstruction is a whole 'nuther topic. But, i will ask you: if Lincoln calling Congress to meet De Facto was ok, then what happened with the original 13th Amendment? Why did they delete it, pretending it never existed? Non Sequitur. WTF does the President's ability to call Congress into session, which is clearly set out in the duties and powers of the President have to do with an Amendment that failed to get enough states to pass it. (I assume you are referring to the No American can have a title of Nobilty amdendment?) Virgina may have passed it but if they failed to properly communicate that to the State Department that means they didn't pass it. I don't call it deleted. I call it mishandled. Remember that back in the early 19th century Politicians were part timers. The state or federal governments only met a few weeks out of the year. You had people that otherwise had real jobs stopping to do the work of government. They f'd up. It happens. Besides it's a pointless amendment. Who cares if a private citizen wants to become a Knight or some such thing. If they run for office the people upon finding that out can choose to not elect them. And once in office it is prohibited anyway. So I don't see the point.
	Quote