Re: Help design the ideal Presidential candidate

On May 13, 12:52 am, Aaron Denney <wno...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-05-12, Nate Edel <archm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > AlfredMontestruc<montest...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On May 7, 4:10 pm, archm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Nate Edel) wrote:
> >> > They never gave a peaceable and legal secession a chance; whether
they
> >> > "should" have seceded at some prior justification is irrelevant to
the
> >> > question of how secession was conducted in late 1860 and early
1861.  The
> >> > Southern states abandoned any pretense of conducting the secession
via legal
> >> > means (act of congress, treaty, or the supreme court - any of which
could
> >> > potentially have been viable) and instead proceeded unilaterally to
sieze
> >> > federal property before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
>
> >> You are missing a huge part of the argument.  Namely that states and
> >> their people voted to enter the union by state elections and state
> >> legal processes, and they had just as much right to vote their way
> >> right back out again without the federal government getting to say
boo
> >> about it.
>
> > That doesn't fly; if you want to look at it purely from the states'
> > perspective, the Constitution is a contract between the states. Like
any
> > contract, it need not be perpetual, but an individual state does not
> > necessarily have the right to unilaterally decide the terms under
which the
> > contract is terminated.

Oh contrary!

It was an open ended association contract, neither specified as
perpetual nor finite duration, that makes it terminable by any party
to it as far as that party is concerned.  See employment contracts
that do not have specific duration, fire or quit at will.  See club
member****p contracts without specific duration.

>
> Thanks for this analysis.  I find it fairly compelling.
>
  not!