While I’m at the dentist’s office, you can read this tale of Orly Taitz inserting herself where she is not wanted, but herself found wanting a legal theory to support her action.
Thanks to the Jack Ryan collection for this tidbit that contains some perhaps over-the-top language, which I borrowed for the headline.
Taitz’ motion is subject to attack on many fronts; between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, she is surrounded.
…
In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
Judicial Watch v King (SD Ind) – Order Denying Taitz Motion to Intevene by Jack Ryan
another Orlyfail
“In sum, Taitz has not articulated any specific common question of law or fact, much less one compelling enough to overcome the looming threats of delay and undue prejudice. Accordingly, Taitz’s motion is DENIED”
correctamundo
The prospect of Orly intervening in a lawsuit must give attorneys the willies.
Does anyone know offhand why she wanted to intervene? I’m to lazy to look up the background of this case to try and figure out her reasons for butting in.
Sanctions would be nice. How about we start at $100,000 every time she wastes the courts time with her incompetent piles of crap?
It’s all about her….
i’d be content with $10 every time she says “usurper/usurped”, “treason/traitor” and “let me feeeneeesh”. maybe turn it into a drinking game ( do they allow that in a court? ).
Orly,
I’ll write your blog entry for you regarding this:
I WON! I WON! I WON!
Feel free to cut-n-paste.
OrlyLaw Mission Statement:
LOOK AT MEEE!!!!!!!!!
I think there was mention of elections in the case, maybe.
Your not the only one too lazy to look up the background of the case. You think Orly would spend the time to research the case, or even read the original complaint?
Cited the wrong subsection of the rule governing intervention and failed to comply with pleading requirements. What a friggin’ surprise.
It’s possible she read the original complaint. She cut and pasted several pages of it into the amended complaint of her own Indiana case, a fact noted by the attorneys representing the State of Indiana in their opposition to her motion to intervene. http://ia700803.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40527/gov.uscourts.insd.40527.42.0.pdf
Wow…that would be a quick way to alcohol poisoning for sure…
This was a very far fetched move by Orly. The case pertains to non-compliance by the State of Indiana to maintain accurate voter registration rolls in some counties that include duplicates, deceased voters, and voters who have moved out of the county, after a satisfactory 2006 clean-up.
It is complicated by the fact that in 2011, chief election official and the Indiana Sec. of State, Charles White, was indicted on seven felony counts, including false voter registration. He was removed from office and sentenced to one year’s house arrest.
Defendants King and Trent are co-directors of the Indiana Election Division (Connie Lawson is the new Indiana Sec. of State). King and Trent dismissed a complaint made by Judicial Watch in which Judicial Watch alleged the failure to maintain accurate voting rolls was a violation of Federal Law. King and Trent essentially responded that “even if all the allegations made in the complaint were true” they did not violate the National Voter Registration Act, without any other explanation.
…and that is as much as I read of the complaint at this point. Once again, it appears that this group is attempting to bring criminal indictments outside of their capacity to bring a criminal complaint.
Here is one of the filings of the Defendant’s explaining their side of the story.
http://ia600803.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40527/gov.uscourts.insd.40527.21.0.pdf
A great comment from a Supreme Court Justice during a Senate hearing.
Article 2 section 1 is probably there to prevent English nobleman from beconing a US president.
Hmmm! Scotus is waiting for an eligibility case ? http://youtu.be/Y8k6-ThWyfU
Maybe there are many ‘ignorant’ Obots who are going to be licking their derrieres when and if Scotus hears an eligibility case.
Maybe the bumhead, lying, cheating, phony in the White House will go down in history as the African Judas who sold his soul for the Marxist agenda.
I continued to be gobsmacked that this lunatic is even permitted to clutter the Courts with her nonsense, especially outside California.
You can play bullsh*t bingo. Though when you yell “BINGO!” you’ll probably be thrown out. 😉
While it would be entertaining, I don’t think they’d allow it. A courtroom filled with passed out drunks is considered a bad thing. 😉 Besides, who knows, after about 30 minutes of that, Orly might start making sense to the audience. That’s also a bad thing.
Bat G.
I know of a certain judge and bailiff that used to bet on “key words” at the start of the day. Who ever had their word uttered the most times by the lawyers in court that day won and the loser had to buy the drinks. Of course certain common legal terms were off limits and you weren’t allowed to reuse a word within 60 days. If only Orly’s circus had come to town while he was still on the bench ….
Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that way. They were concerned that a foreigner, the agent of some foreign interest, would come to the United States, naturalize, and then bribe his way into the presidency. This sentiment is behind both the Article II requirements for the office of the President, as well as the Electoral College.
So what’s your point?
Given that that is likely the actual original intent, perhaps the courts should consider whether it even ought to apply to an ordinary immigrant representing no one but him or her self.
Judges in Victoria Australia, basically Melbourne, used to amuse themselves trying to outdo each other in court with witty, pithy statements that would earn them a mention on the all things legal radio show called “Lawyers, Guns, and Money” on 3RRR radio. Each week they would give a ‘prize’ (i.e. on air mention) of the ‘Beak of the Weak’, and at the end of year wrap up they would reminisce about them all and vote on the ‘Beak of the Year’.
Some of them were hilarious.
Based on my reading of the debates on Presidential eligibility and other commentary, my opinion is that the concerns that prompted the NBC clause are no longer relevant as our form or government is no longer novel, and that the US is now a powerful and wealthy nation. That said, I see no groundswell of sentiment that would reach the high bar necessary for a Constitutional amendment, so we’re left with what we have.
[Your comment does not relate to the current article. If you want to participate on this blog, respect the subjects under discussion, or post on the Open Thread. If you want to enter into a dialog, you cannot do it with multiple personalities; pick a name and stick to it, and stop trying to appear to be multiple persons. Otherwise, I will just delete your comments. Drive-by insults are of no value and are akin to littering. Doc.]
The point is that a supreme court justice contradicts all the garbage posted on this blog when the post say that the NBC has many different false representations on this blog.
The comment from the Supreme court justice appears to validate the birthers views of what an NBC should be. The comment made by the justice contradicts what Dr. C(rap) is posting on this blog and in fact it appears that Dr. C(rap) agrees with the Supreme court justice comment that indicates that Americans didn’t want some kind of King’s subject to ever become president of America.
AND! how can anyone believe that there’s a valid age of 35 years old to be potus when the white house donkey has three forged documents?
avatar
Dr. Conspiracy March 27, 2013 at 8:46 am (Quote) #
Some of the Framers of the Constitution felt that way. They were concerned that a foreigner, the agent of some foreign interest, would come to the United States, naturalize, and then bribe his way into the presidency. This sentiment is behind both the Article II requirements for the office of the President, as well as the Electoral College.
Agreed 100%.
But, we are discussing how the meaning of a term is interpreted, which doesn’t involve amending. Could the Supreme Court simply find, based on those debates and commentary, that the term should only be applied to foreign royalty or agents of foreign governments and not to ordinary immigrants? In principle, they could, though I will agree it is unlikely they would.
For example, in Plessy, the Supreme Court found separate but equal to be constitutional. Then, in Brown, they found it wasn’t. In the interim, there were no amendments that pertained to segregation. But society changed. We are seeing something similar in the same-sex marriage cases the Court is hearing yesterday and today.
This is why I find “originalism” to be profoundly silly. The Constitution exists to serve the needs of the country, not the reverse. As the needs change, the Constitution changes, whether amended or not. It might well be better to have an open process in which the entire Constitution was periodically revised as a whole to adapt to social changes. This is what Jefferson argued for (he said, “One generation cannot bind another”) and is what most countries do (I think the average life of a Constitution is around 50 years) . Failing that, the US has left it to 9 people in black robes. That has generally worked, but isn’t necessarily optimal.
Well said. It’s one thing to write a Constitution so a free and prospering country has a solid legal foundation. It’s another thing to write a Constitution to forever bind future generations to your personal opinions.
And while a common counterargument is “if you don’t like original intent, you have to amend”, this neglects the fact that laws are usually written to be timeless, not to be changed whenever society’s opinion diverges from lawmakers’ *intent* (but only if it diverges from the actual text of the law).
The only “original intent” that we can be sure of all the Founding Fathers shared (except perhaps D, Carrol and Fitzsimmons), was that only White Anglo-Saxon Male Protestants (WAMPs) should ever be in charge – and of course, within less than half of a century, when Andrew Jackson was still alive, Americans forgot about it.
Nevertheless, the three Presidents who did not have the four characteristics, had three of them. I consider both Irish-Americans and half-Irish, half-colonial-British Presidents to be 100% Anglo-Saxons.
It took the new nation barely 48 years to elect a WMP, no fewer than 124 years to elect a WAM and again 48 years to elect an AMP. Evidence of how important religion became after Van Buren?
Will it take another 48 years to elect a WAP? How long before the USA elects one with only 2,1, or none of those characteristics?
The same approach to disregarding the meaning of NBC could be used for other parts, such as Habeas Corpus. What might benefit one outdated issue could be used to trample other rights without the “slow down and think about it process” inherent in making an amendment.
Is there any way to sue the California BAR for allowing this bleach blond blight to continue unabated?
Sure, hire Orly…she’ll make up whatever reason she wants to sue them for you. You won’t even have to show up or file anything!!! hehehe
That is actually crazy enough to work. They’ll see her insanity up close and personal, and ask themselves “Dear God, what have we unleashed?” 😉
First of all, the original intent of the NBC clause was to prevent the installation of foreign royalty. I think the debates and the history of the time make that very clear. So, refusing to apply it to ordinary immigrants would actually be truer to the original intent than the current policy is.
Second, I dispute that the Constitution is really the only thing that stands between the people and tyranny. Habeas Corpus comes not from the Constitution, but from Common Law. The important rights in the Bill of Rights really come from that tradition as well and are codified in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with many other rights that Americans have ignored, but that other countries show more respect for (like rights to basic health care-without that when you are sick, the other rights are meaningless-and education). I maintain that if the Constitution went away tomorrow, the great traditions of Common Law would protect all your rights just as they are protected in English-speaking countries that don’t have constitutions or wrote them only recently.
Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/john-roberts-swipes-obama-doma.php. So, if Congress ignored NBC and accepted a brilliant, loyal and highly accomplished immigrant that the people had voted for as President, that would hardly be a tragedy, would it?
Just to expand on this, because it’s a bugaboo of mine-freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to a fair trial, etc,-it’s a misnomer to call them constitutional rights. They are HUMAN RIGHTS. Every nation in the world is bound to respect them regardless of what their constitutions say. That is certainly long-standing US policy. I bothers me when someone says this or that right (like voting) isn’t in the Constitution, so it doesn’t exist. That’s b.s.-they are human rights and they most definitely exist.
Finally, the Constitution is said to protect against the wrong-headed desires of the majority that would trample freedom. I wonder. The Constitution protected slavery. So did the Supreme Court. Yet, by 1830 or 1840, the large majority of the population lived in states that had abolished slavery and a simple majority will at that point would have almost certainly been to phase it out over some period, perhaps 20 years. That might have avoided the Civil War. Remember, the British Empire abolished slavery by a vote of Parliament in 1833. Done.
new thread yonder over at freeper gulch: “Anti-Birther Dr. Conspiracy Says The Presidential Natural Born Citizen Clause Is No Longer Relevant”
some representative coments:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddd she’s off again….
Not content with making a complete arse of herself at C-PAC she has now reported that she sashayed down to a SSA office in CT and unloaded her 75 kilo’s of BS zibbits on the poor staff there.
As usual she lied, demanded, threatened etc and qu’elle suprise got shown the door…..I smell another RICO case….
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/ssa-crashed-obama-used-another-social.html
There are outdated laws in many jurisdictions (there are numerous web sites that list them). If a prosecutor was dumb enough to charge someone under those laws, that would be a defense. I remember when our former Governor, Eliot Spitzer, got into his little trouble, there was talk that he could be charged under the Mann Act, which is still on the books. The fact that no one had been charged under it in decades was a good argument not to try.
*face palm*
From the link you provided:
Translation: “I’m gonna let some other poor schlub deal with your nuttiness” Well played, Ms Sheridan. Well played.
That is the part that must really suck about having a public sector job over many private ones. They have to spend a little bit of time tolerating and humoring crazy people who show up raving about perceived ills and handing out reams of paper full of their delusions.
Just one more reason why a lot of private businesses screen visitor appointments and have onsite security which can quickly escort the people back out the door and threaten them with calling the cops to arrest them for harassment on private propertly if they don’t immediately leave…
Sounds like “SMARTY” has not heard of jury nullification.
I didn’t say the clause was no longer relevant. It is very relevant because it is the law and it determines who may run for President.
I said that the concerns that prompted the inclusion of the clause in the Constitution are no longer relevant.
Of course I’m long-banned at Freeperville.
Are there any Vietnamese Buddhists on EMILY’s List?
I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.
What an irresponsible thing for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say. The Court is the arbitrator of what is Constitutional and what is not, not the President. This President may think DOMA is unconstitutional, the next may not, the next one may.
What the heck do we pay the Supreme Court for anyway?
You are right to point out the difference between Constitutional rights and human rights. But your example, voting, is a civil right, not a human right.
Human rights include the ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ kind of stuff. Stuff that all humans are entitled to simply because they exist.
Civil rights are the stuff that members of a civilization are entitled too because they are members of that civilization. Voting is a right only because we belong to a society that organizes itself by voting. Voting was not a right in Mongol Asia.
There is of course debate about which ‘rights’ belong in the ‘human rights’ category. I doubt Genghis Khan had the same idea of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ that I have, but even he would recognize that even his conquered subjects have the right to eat.
It is recognized in Article 21 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in drafting and which the US has ratified, making it the law of the land. It states, ” Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml I will point out that the UDHR provides a far more expansive set of rights than the US Constitution.
To me that means that if your country governs itself through elections, then you have a right to vote. If they choose to govern themselves, as some tribal societies do, through reaching consensus at tribal meetings, then you have a right to attend and speak. Universal suffrage is a value that America has claimed to be at stake in sending troops to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That the President must be a natural born citizen is an example that is not a human right, nor a fundamental value that any sane person would die for. It’s merely a rule, like the infield fly rule.
And surely, Keith, you aren’t suggesting that Genghis Khan should be the model for modern America.
Do we have an Obot stationed at the Stamford, CT Social Security office who can destroy Orly’s evidence or should one be dispatched?
We left a full staff there after they issued the original stolen SSN
And yet Obama is still your President. That must really shred your shorts lol
—-
I agree. If he has something to say, he should say it in a published Court opinion or dissent. Throwing out a provocative, confusing, and non-binding statement like that is just bizarre; same for Scalia.
I have read that the RC Radio studios are located in an underground bunker in Connecticut.
Putting the depth of the thought and opinions of the posters on this blog whom believe there is no difference between natural born citizen, native citizen or just citizen and why it does not matter what the citizenry of the person who aspires to be President, on the edge of a straight edge razor would seem as it is on a bowling alley lane.
No, of course not. I’m merely pointing out that VOTING is not a ‘human right’.
The right to live is a human right, it is not dependent on the society in which a human functions.
The right to vote is a civil right, it is dependent on the society in which a human functions.
As you point out, some societies don’t vote, they reach consensus in other ways. My example was an extreme example of another way – Genghis Khan told everyone what the consensus was. Certainly participating in society is a human right, but how that society functions defines the set of civil rights.
As you pointed out, the Constitution is not the sum total of one’s human rights. In fact the Constitution enumerates many more civil rights than human rights; that is the kind of document it is. Of course there is the Ninth Amendment, which acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t pretend to have listed every possible ‘right’.
Anyway, the Declaration of Independence is more of a human rights declaration than the Constitution.
Yeah, but since you never leave your Mom’s basement, how are you going to get to the SSA offices to deal with the breach?
Interesting I always thought I broadcast in a castle in the clouds
I heard she actually went to the Stamford, CT SSA office to try to do something. I wish I would have known would have definitely stopped in to watch. They’re just down the street.
Could you rephrase that in English?
That’s as coherent as it gets when a jackass babbles in birtherese.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I wish I would have known would have definitely stopped in to watch. They’re just down the street.
MOI AUSSI!!!! i’m 20 mnutes away – for someone like taitz who loves media attention, i see nothing in the local CT newspapers
i would have loved to chronicle it for hysterical …. i mean historical reasons
Obama bad.. Me hate…
I wonder if that is Gabe Zolna from YoutTube? He speaks in Birfer gibberish.
This is a long thread and I can’t read all of it. But I’ll throw my two cents in about the Defense of Marriage Act- (DOMA, which former Pres. Clinton recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn)…
Scientist: Third, you may be interested that Chief Justice Roberts said just today that the answer to the unconstitutional parts of DOMA is not for the court to void them, but for the President to simply not enforce them
The defense of marriage referred to here literally mandates that the office of the President of the U.S., the Commander-in-Chief, the military, and lessor law enforcement, i.e. (police), use public funds (paid by even celibate people) to actively engage in “defending” marriage with the use of armed force! How totally inappropriate that the government should put a gun to your head and force you to stay married, or make unlawful in degrees any number of variations outside of marriage (such as cohabitation). Marriage should not include government FORCE at all!!!!
There was a time when only marriages between white folk was allowed, and interracial marriage was an enFORCED felony.
Also, at the risk of upsetting “dissidents” and opponents of the idea that a natural born citizen according to Constitutional law is one born in the U.S., anyone is free to believe otherwise- but convincing the majority of voters is what will matter in the end.
And, I keep forgetting to mention to those who keep on insisting Obama was born in Africa- correct me if I am wrong, but EVEN IF HE WAS born in Africa, Hawaii has a law that as long as one Hawaiian resident parent has documented residency in Hawaii one year prior to birth, the child is a Hawaiian, and U.S. Citizen.
Obama was born in Hawaii, and even if he was born in Kenya, refer to the statement above. He was a dual citizen by natural right at birth- he could choose either African citizenship at his legal age of consent, or he could choose American citizenship. He chose American citizenship. He is a free man.
This is one of the most wonderfully ironic sentences ever written by a birfer. Are you one of those Santorum supporters who thinks education is for snobs? I’ll bet you want government out of your Medicare, don’t you?
That’s a sentence I would hate to diagram.
Huh? lol
Gabe, you are devolving quickly. Nobody here believes there is no difference between a superset (citizen) and its proper subset (natural/native born citizen).
If you actually believe that, you are either spewing brainless birther talking points or have a real problem understanding the basic common English written here. Maybe someone needs to translate that into the Gaberish you speak?
No, he didn’t say that (at least not judging from what the article says).
He made a non-legal quip that if the President thinks parts of a law are unconstitutional, he should stop enforcing them right away and not wait for SCOTUS to rule on it.
He didn’t say the President should simply not enforce potentially unconstitutional parts *instead of* bothering SCOTUS with it.
Sorry, but your paraphrase reads like many RWNJ spins, even though you probably didn’t mean to. 😉
(I think the quip can be criticized on other grounds, such as it may be improper for a SCOTUS judge to tell the President to stop enforcing laws as he sees fit instead of waiting for a SCOTUS decision on constitutionality, basically telling him “if you think something might be unconstitutional, take the risk of SCOTUS not agreeing”. Why the heck would a judge want the President to take such risks?)
That’s how I read it.
It sounded really strange coming from a SCCJ. While I found it hard to believe my reading of the story, I couldn’t interpret it any other way .
I’ll have to go back and check it out further.
The above post is the winner of a guest of honor invite to the Dinner Game.
Equating a racist time in US history with a moral perversion is beyond comprehension!
I don’t see a great difference between the 2.
I suppose that the President could direct all federal agencies to ignore DOMA and treat all marriages the same. After all, prosecutors have discretion as to where to focus the resources of their offices and some have opted not to prosecute certain crimes, like possession of small amounts of marijuana. Certainly, the cops don’t ticket people for going 3 mph over the limit, though it is illegal. So, the Attorney General, who works for the President could probably take such an action here under his discretionary powers.
Then. the onus would be on those who disagree to sue. They would have a problem with standing, since no one could demonstrate actual harm from such an action (which is why DOMA was dumb from the get-go). But that would then leave the status in limbo, dependent on the whims of each administration. So the sensible course is for the Court to say whether it is or isn’t unconstitutional. Roberts just seemed peeved that he is being asked to do his job.
OK, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. This is his quote:
Lets suppose Obama issues an executive order that says we’re not going to enforce section 3 of the DOMA. So let married same sex couples file joint tax returns. Start paying social security benefits to survivors. Let American citizens bring in their same sex spouse in the same way heterosexual couples do, etc, etc, etc right down the line.
Now suppose that SCOTUS eventually rules that section 3 is Constitutional after all.
How does all that executing based on “his view of the Constitution” get undone? Didn’t the “courage of his convictions” cause him to violate his oath to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States”?
Roberts is ducking the issue and trying to pass the buck for his own lack of intellectual and legal rigor. He seems to think that the discrimination against homosexual couples is just a figment of their imagination and doesn’t have any real world consequences.
He gets paid to weigh laws against the Constitution and make judgments about them in that context. That’s why he is called a judge. Obama presides over the execution of the laws, that’s why he is called President.
According to this HuffPo article, John Roberts DOMA Skepticism: Chief Justice Wonders If Law Was Really Motivated By Homophobia , it isn’t the first time that Justice Roberts has refused to acknowledge that discrimination exists.
Huh! Guess what I just noticed?
In ‘researching’ Roberts background just now for that post above I noticed that before he was on the Supreme Court, he succeeded James Buckley as Judge for the US Court of Appeals in DC.
James Buckley is the brother of William Buckley and was a Senator from New York (Conservative Party switched to Republican after leaving the Senate) before he was a Judge. Buckley is the Buckley of Buckley v. Valeo that basically struck down the 1974 Campaign Finance Laws and ushered in the era of the dark money SuperPACs.
But the interesting factoid is that the most important (according to Wikipedia anyway) piece of legislation he introduced as Senator was the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
That’s right folk, the same guy that brought you Dark Money and out of control election spending, brought you Obama’s secret student record cache. So he can easily get the $23 million (or whatever it is this week) he needs to hide his records and the law on his side too!
I tell ya, this guy Buckley must be his father or something.
Holy crap! Gabe actually learned how to use the quote function! This might be the first time in history that a birfer has demonstrated that he can learn. It’s a start. Next, Gabe, you should work on constructing a proper sentence and making a proper comparison.
You didn’t answer my question about Medicare. Do you think government should get out of Medicare?
I did an online readability analysis of Gabe’s post. On a scale of 100, his post scored 8.
I’m pretty sure that Gabe is Gabe Zolna. He likes to refer to the “stars and bars,” which probably tells you all you need to know about him.
You’re back on that kick? Again, do you not realize that the real schmucks of that game (in both the French and American versions) are the people issuing the invites? So you like to repeatedly insult yourself?
The time has come, the walrus said
To speak of many things
Of shoes, of ships, of sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.
@Gabe: You may know the words, but you don’t know the tune.
I tend to agree with Diane Rehm. On one of her radio shows (I think it was in 2008) she opined that voting was the most important duty of a citizen. (This is from my memory, and I cannot find the quote in Google.) I doubt that Doc wants to get into a rights vs. duties discussion, but when the U.S. voting percentage is so low it gives one pause to consider our country’s fate.
Actually, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Presidential electors has remained relatively constant over the past 100 years. The high point was 62.8% in 1960. The turnout in 2012 is estimated to have been 57.5%, up considerably from the 49% turnout in 1996.
Do you think those are acceptable numbers? Also bear in mind, that those are percentages of registered voters, not eligible voters,
In the comments on Conterio’s article Mark Gillar extended a debate challenge to HistorianDude:
Frank Arduini (HistorianDude) accepted and the debate was set for April 5th. Now it is off according to Frank.
I think the attempted secession of the southern states suggests that slavery was not going to go out the easy way in our country. Free speech was being cast aside by the South, in its criminalizing of anti-slavery speech, in great contrast to our founding era’s ferociousness of speech on all matters. Also, keep in mind that in 1860 Lincoln received zero, count them zero, popular votes in southern states. Ahem, as we say in the vernacular. The Civil War and Reconstruction, with its amendments and laws, had a lot to do with guaranteeing a republican form of government, as per the Constitution, against such destructive actions.