Customer Discussions > History forum

Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 751-775 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on May 30, 2012 4:18:49 AM PDT
I'd be for legalizing prostitution, by adults, if and only if the bill included capital punishment for pimps, brothel owners, and traffickers.

Posted on May 30, 2012 7:31:23 AM PDT
Clearly unconstitutional.

It was a big mistake for the Union to attempt to reincorporate these backwards areas, and today we still suffer the consequences of allowing the conquered states equal political representation. They obstruct every attempt of the enlightened northern states to improve the nation.

Somebody should bring a case to the Supreme Court challenging the reincorporation of the rebel states into the union.

Expel them!

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:23:05 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
Barton Paul Levenson says:
I'd be for legalizing prostitution, by adults, if and only if the bill included capital punishment for pimps, brothel owners, and traffickers.

f4a: What? If it is legal, brothels would be legal. The workers could even have part ownership in the business like any others. Trafficking? Like advertizing or a prostitute that move from one city to another and start a new outlet?

Really Levenson, you cannot see it being legal. You only see the existing paradigm of crime created by government prohibition.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:24:07 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
Craig V. Koebelin's post: Expel them!

f4a: Please, do it now!

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:28:41 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
I detect a POE.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 8:53:46 AM PDT
f4a:
The cliche, of course, is that the Netherlands is the prime example of legalization of prostitution all but eliminating the slave trade. The Dutch equivalent of the FBI, however, has reported that about 1/4 of the prostitutes are held against their will. These are women who've come to the Netherlands from eastern countries and had trafficers confiscate their passports. Their report doesn't address the issue of children, though.

I would tend to doubt that there are many child prostitutes in the Netherlands, however. The Dutch are vigilant on this score. Much of the international work being done to apprehend those who traffic in children is being done by the Dutch. One article addressing this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7061145.stm

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 9:12:01 AM PDT
BPL:
I would agree on the issue of legalization. The problems are far less severe where prostitution is legal.
My gut tells me I'd like to see those who traffic in children be made to die a slow and torturous death. Since the issue of pimps and brothel owners would be all but cleaned up, I'm not sure about capital punishment for them. In the Netherlands they rent "windows" to prostitutes, thus eliminating brothels and the girls "pimp" themselves.

Not that I actually know how any of that works. As a wife and mother my vacations haven't exactly included anybody's "Red Light Districts".

And thanks for the interest and the help. I won't keep flogging this horse in this thread, but I do like to get the word out when I can.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 9:13:25 AM PDT
What is a POE? Something like a troll?

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 9:36:00 AM PDT
S. Kessler says:
A POE is someone who says something so outrageous but that can easily be mistaken for the real thing. A POE's post can sound like a parody of an extreme position on something, but it will often be taken as real.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 3:09:28 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 30, 2012 3:40:48 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 3:10:19 PM PDT
No problem, OM, you made a good point. Thanks for posting.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 6:18:44 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 30, 2012 6:22:41 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 4:06:27 AM PDT
BPL: I'd be for legalizing prostitution, by adults, if and only if the bill included capital punishment for pimps, brothel owners, and traffickers.

f4a: What? If it is legal, brothels would be legal. The workers could even have part ownership in the business like any others. Trafficking? Like advertizing or a prostitute that move from one city to another and start a new outlet?

BPL: Trafficking refers to the modern trade in sex slaves. If you paid attention to any other news source than Fox or right-wing talk radio, you would have heard the term before.

Posted on May 31, 2012 5:05:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 7:00:07 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
BPL: Trafficking refers to the modern trade in sex slaves. If you paid attention to any other news source than Fox or right-wing talk radio, you would have heard the term before.

f4a: LoL, I had, but the point I was making is the a legalization creates an entirely difference paridagm that the existing one. Abuse of children become much hard. This follows the Principles that government interference even with the best of intentions always worsens the outcome.

The deaths due to lead poisoning over drug trade money are orders of magnitude worse that all the deaths from legalized drugs. To permanently flood twice the area that is saved from occasional flooding is the mark of government doing good for society.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 1:25:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 8:59:50 PM PDT
Hi Olivia:)! Yes that name does bring back what is now a memory:) Admittedly (and with some gratitude) this discussion has stayed pretty clean in spite of a little ad hominem here and there. These posters seem to have their facts stacked beside their keyboards. I have been busy doing summer things away from Anchorage (AK). In Alaska you have to get summer things done fast because it is so short however brilliant and beautiful. This discussion seems to have a lot more depth.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 1:49:51 PM PDT
f: government interference even with the best of intentions always worsens the outcome.

BPL: In your mind.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 2:10:52 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
A proven Principle Levenson. The government's war on its citizens who use government banned drug is just one egregious example.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 4:09:40 AM PDT
f: A proven Principle Levenson. The government's war on its citizens who use government banned drug is just one egregious example.

BPL: It's an example of a bad government policy. To use that to prove that all government policies are bad is a classic fallacy of composition. "The guy who mugged me was black. Black people are all criminals." Same logic.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 8:37:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 1, 2012 8:38:22 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
The military industrial congressional complex
The IRS
The CIA
The TVA
The FDA
The American Health Care Cartel
The highway system that allow 35,000+ killed each year, plus more maimed for life.
Flood insurance allowing upper class to build in known areas of danger,
Subsides to farms including sugar and corn to convere them to fuel at a huge wage. Tariffs and regulations keeping cheaper produce off the American market.
BTAFA
EPA
OSHA
MHSA

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 9:28:17 PM PDT
Michael:
I don't know how you get it all done. Blink your eyes and summer is over.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 9:41:23 PM PDT
f4a:
I have to admit that as a former resident of New Jersey, the Flood Insurance situation really ticks me off. These people build multimillion dollar mansions on sand spits along the coast of New Jersey were there used to be nothing but a few duck hunter's shacks, then when we have storms that flood their homes or destroy them, who, I ask you, ends up paying for their stupid McMansions to be rebuilt or repaired. We, the ever-loving sucker taxpayers, that's who.

In short, we have to pay for someone else's stupidity.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 10:58:50 PM PDT
O.M.
In California, the premiums people like that have to pay for either private or public flood insurance make it too expensive. They bear the costs of repair themselves. I work onthe coast, and when I worked outside, I would see the same houses badly damaged every other year. When I talked to the owners, the all said it's worth it to live 30 feet from the high tide mark.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 7:27:46 PM PDT
E. Hynes says:
I think it's a meaningless question. As far as I remember, there's nothing in the Constitution about how one would leave, so Lincoln's argument that the compact could not be broken seems plausible.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 7:46:53 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Ed, have you reviewed the 9th and 10th Amendment with respect to how the States voted to enter the Union?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 11:36:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 2, 2012 11:37:08 PM PDT
freedom4all: "Ed, have you reviewed the 9th and 10th Amendment with respect to how the States voted to enter the Union"

There's also the Elastic Clause in the in Article 1 section 18 though so even though not all the rights are listed as per Amendments 9 and 10 --- the US Govt has to do what is "necessary and proper" - albeit that power is listed under Congressional powers (and Congress really did not play that card).
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  104
Total posts:  2009
Initial post:  May 10, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 7, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions