Hello khalling,
Yes it is. That is your prerogative. :)
Regards,
O.A.

it's my post and I like the thread!

Also he is supposed to be a constitutional expert... of what or whose constitution I don't know... :)

No problem. :) I quite agree.
Regards,
O.A.

I agree with you - this started as one simple comment and ended up taking over the thread. My apologies. I also agree with you and do not deny that Lincoln had many wisdoms; unfortunately, he has been made into a great American hero, which he is not.

Of course not; I never suggested that. Of course Lincoln did not start the war nor enjoyed it. Whether the war was legal or not and whether it should have happened or not is a separate issue. I am only commenting here on how he prosecuted the war. I am also not sure if the extra-ordinary times justify extra-ordinary measures. I can see the plus and the minus of this equation and not sure which prevails. Perhaps each case needs to be addressed individually. Perhaps it is a stretch, perhaps not, but Obama's despotism is an outgrowth of Lincoln's policies. I see dangers ahead and I am voicing my concerns.

Hello strugatsky,
I believe you are reading more support for the man in my comments than I intended. I am not placing the man or his actions on a pedestal, only recognizing that he spoke some words of wisdom he did not live up to...That despite his own beliefs and motives regarding slavery he was instrumental in its abolition. I understand and agree with the majority of criticisms you and others have made. He is not on my list of great presidents because of his actions. However, just as I do not agree with Plato on a great many things, it does not mean that he was devoid of all wisdom. I would not debate you on Lincoln because I am aware of the issues you presented and did learn of Lincoln well before 1980. I would not be so foolish as to support him in a debate of meritorious actions. I would suggest you start a separate thread if you desire, where I would likely be generally aligned with your positions. Although it appears you and others have already demonstrated the strength of your case, leaving little to say. I try not to hijack threads with off topic material.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Interesting point. You are correct - the South considered itself to be a separate country and could not have expected any of the Constitutional protections from the North. But the North did not consider the South to be a separate country; rather, they considered them rebels, but citizens of the United States. Thus, the North was obligated to give the South the Constitutional protections, which it did not. So, was the Constitution ignored and put aside, or was this a war of conquest by the North?

Of course, that still leaves crimes against the Constitution within the states that were officially in the Union - MD, MO and in DC.

On your last point, yes, Lincoln did push through the 13th Amendment. It is proper to consider him as ending slavery. My point was that slavery was not a major issue for Lincoln throughout his presidency and it was not the major reason for the war. The current textbooks, of course, are teaching the reverse of the facts. In retrospect, slavery was coming to an end in the South anyway, not only because it is reprehensible morally, but because economically it was not as productive as the alternative in the North. But Lincoln's violations of the Constitution have set a precedent forever, besides the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.

The precedents of violations are terribly important because the Constitution had (and has) an mortal flaw, and Lincoln exploited it -- the Constitution does not specify any punishment for its abrogation. The Framers of the Constitution were Gentlemen, and it was sufficient for Gentlemen to agree to certain rules and those rules would be obeyed. But the Gentlemen died and were replaced by lawyers, who had no scruples is breaking agreements. And then the ball just rolled down the hill...

did you just type "LOL"?

that's my emoticon

LOL

I am aware of a study that was done in the Federal District of MD (same as the state of MD), in 2009, I believe. There were 1,000 cases based on the Bill of Rights. These were analyzed and about half were determined to be frivolous (as in inmates having too much time), but half were legitimate grievances. Of those, exactly zero made it to the courtroom.

Nonsense. Can you read this in an hour http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v38... and discuss all its implication? Of course not. Does that mean it is intentionally obfuscated? No

I think the major problem the US faces today is that many do respect the bill of rights and the constitution. Most in the government don't. The confrontation facing all of us may well be the most important event to ever face this nation.

Robbie you are not skilled at reading claims you have not had the training. I once held a session with multiple Phds at Motorola who each had multiple patents. Over and over they told me they had no idea why the patents we were analyzing were ever allowed. I forced them to read the claims like an equation and we soon found the nugget that made the claim patentable and why we did not infringe. So my experience is that without the proper training it is very unlikely that someone will correctly interpret a claim. Claims are not prose, could not be written as prose. I would not presume that I could understand the details of a lecture advanced biochemistry, it is pure arrogance for an engineer who has not passed the patent bar to assume they can correctly interpret claims.

Absolutely true the history of Lincoln is revisionist. Personally, I think the Income Tax, conscription, legal tender laws, printing of money, and 1st amendment issues (I am less aware of these) were much more damaging to the Constitution in the long run.

The present situation in the US certainly shows we need a through vetting of how the Bill of Rights applies in times of war. However, we don't respect the bill of rights or the constitution at all anymore.