This is a great book that helps dispel some of the nostalgia for "the good old days." Read it and you quickly realize that things Way Back When just plain sucked....
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Old-Days-They-Were-Terrible/dp/0394709411
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
And I Thought This One Was Settled in 1865
- Thread starter NavAir42
- Start date
This is a great book that helps dispel some of the nostalgia for "the good old days." Read it and you quickly realize that things Way Back When just plain sucked....
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Old-Days-They-Were-Terrible/dp/0394709411
Probably true, but apparently Virginia can afford some sweet Cessna 172's for it's state defenses. http://vadf-avn.org/
(From the pictures, it looks like they also have no issue granting any and all waivers for age, weight, or eyesight. . . I think the "rubber dogshit out of Hong Kong" line may need an update to "Cessna 172 out of Virginia")
Based on their website, there is a distinct Army feel to this unit. I wonder if the real conspiracy here is to re-absorb the Air Force into the Army... One of the standard Army/USAF rivalry jokes goes something like, "The past 60 years have been great but it's time for the experiment to end."
Ignored according to whose interpretation of the enumerated powers? There is a long history of SCOTUS rulings with respect to the extent of federal powers that have for the large part upheld federal powers with respect to its modern activities. Do you deem the SCOTUS an illegitimate authority on the Constitution? The Constitution is remarkably concise, so it's impossible to get very restrictive or literal interpretations without delving into external sources.
Ignored according to the Constitution. It is very specific in this case, and you can either read plain english or "interpret" whatever you want. You have made it very clear how you feel, and I think I should have listened to advice I was given earlier to not bother with you.
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
What TreeTop said, plus look up Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sandford. SCOTUS can be wrong too.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
What would be your view of ex parte Merryman?
In this particular case, the view of the SCOTUS are not upheld and Federal powers claim the ability to suspend the Constitution as they see fit. Federal powers will win, this case may have been a tipping point for the imbalance of power.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
As a side note, a lot of these 'defense forces' are actually prohibited from carrying weapons while in uniform. Most of their efforts are in Seach and Rescue, etc. I guess they are a little like CAP in that regard. So what!? If it makes them feel good to help other people out, I have no problem with that. If you look at GA's 'defense forces' they actually look like a semi-real Army unit. Reasonably well-kept, etc...
In all fairness here, the thought of an armed state militia may not be all that bad. After all there is plenty of information available on who is doing what and where they are. A true threat may be something more apparent in a militia not having any ties to any government, some armed organization that solely believes in anarchy or a non-democratic/republic type government, cult, etc. The fact that they are aligning themselves with the state, and submitting to the governor may be somewhat of a good sign.
In all fairness here, the thought of an armed state militia may not be all that bad. After all there is plenty of information available on who is doing what and where they are. A true threat may be something more apparent in a militia not having any ties to any government, some armed organization that solely believes in anarchy or a non-democratic/republic type government, cult, etc. The fact that they are aligning themselves with the state, and submitting to the governor may be somewhat of a good sign.
We are the United States of America, not the Federal Republic of America. If the duly elected government of a state wishes to raise an arm a military force independent of the Federal Government, who cares? The problem with the Civil War wasn't the "raising of state militias" thing, it was the "insurrection, rebellion, and racial oppression" thing.
Pointless? Maybe. But there are good reasons why a limited central government, and more power to the state and local levels is a good thing, and that doesn't make you a wingnut to believe it.
Trial balloon for what? Both sides of the aisle seem perfectly happy with the general status quo. I submit that this "creep of Federal influence" is unstoppable and natural - kind of like global warming.
Any notion of politically driven or initiated change in this issue is hopelessly fringe and therefore irrelevant (looking at you Dr. Paul).Brett
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
The problem is an increasing percentage of America is unhappy with both sides of the aisle (while pundits talk about low approval ratings for POTUS, the ratings for Congress as a whole are even lower depending on which polls etc you use). The question is whether the dislike will overcome the inertia/low turnouts every 2 years and translate into viable 3rd parties etc (ie not RON PAUL BRAIIINNNSSS).
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
I agree with you on the above...
just going to put on my tin foil hat for just a minute:
The Civil War... which wasn't a 'civil war' (as is defined by two factions fighting for control of a single government), but rather a war for secession/independence. The 'insurrection, rebellion' are the same sediments shared during the War for Independence from England. There is cause that racial oppression wasn't the main theme (it can be debated either way - but certainly a key component), Lincoln certainly wasn't anti-slavery from the begining. Many will agrue that the main goal of the emancipation proclaimation (which didn't apply to northern/border slave states) was to dissuade the British from supporting the South. Many also believe that slavery would have naturally died out thanks to agriculture inventions coming out and also where other countries like England did not fight a war over it.
Ironically enough, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History by hanging Sioux Indians in Minnesota just months after the Emancipation Proclaimation... which that whole incident goes unnoticed in American History books.
Ok... tin foil hat off now...
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
Actually every state did not cite slavery as a reason.. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee did not.
Perhaps it was for some Southern states... but hardly the motivation in the North.
Which is why Mr Lincoln said:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;"
Mr. Seward:
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. "
Something just doesn't sit right with the primary motivation for 620,000 battlefield deaths as a complete issue over slavery where at the same time, Sioux Indians were being exterminated by the North. If it were truly the sole reason for so many deaths, why was it not abolished in the North prior to the war? Slavery was legal prior to and during the war. Few Northerners wanted freed slaves in the North.. many states tried to prevent it.
Obviously, the end of slavery is an unequivocal good that came from the war. Anyways... end of my opinions...back to the original topic
Perhaps it was for some Southern states... but hardly the motivation in the North.
Which is why Mr Lincoln said:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;"
Mr. Seward:
"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. "
Something just doesn't sit right with the primary motivation for 620,000 battlefield deaths as a complete issue over slavery where at the same time, Sioux Indians were being exterminated by the North. If it were truly the sole reason for so many deaths, why was it not abolished in the North prior to the war? Slavery was legal prior to and during the war. Few Northerners wanted freed slaves in the North.. many states tried to prevent it.
Obviously, the end of slavery is an unequivocal good that came from the war. Anyways... end of my opinions...back to the original topic