collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* 2019-2020 SOTG Tally


2019-20 Season SoG Tally
Howard12
Anim2
Bailey2
Cain1
McEwen1

'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Golden Tigers SOTG by 1SE
[Today at 12:35:39 AM]


DJ Not Starting Has Potential Problems by MUHoopsFan2
[Today at 12:34:10 AM]


DJ Carton by TAMU Eagle
[Today at 12:31:51 AM]


Marquette Future Noncon Opponents Thread by TAMU Eagle
[Today at 12:22:26 AM]


Uh Oh (BLM patch on MU uniforms) by TAMU Eagle
[Today at 12:15:45 AM]


Recruiting as of 11/15/20 by MU82
[Today at 12:09:53 AM]


General Big East Thread 20-21 by TAMU Eagle
[Today at 12:09:11 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: Arkansas - Pine Bluff

Marquette
Marquette vs.

Arkansas Pine Bluff

Date/Time: Nov 25, 2020, 9:00pm
TV: FS1
Schedule for 2019-20
18-12

Author Topic: NM  (Read 829214 times)

mu_hilltopper

  • Warrior
  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6762
  • 2020 the year of #Arbys
    • https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys
Re: NM
« Reply #775 on: August 23, 2017, 08:02:47 AM »
Thank god, this thread is back on track.

Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5376
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: NM
« Reply #776 on: August 23, 2017, 08:05:27 AM »
Thank god, this thread is back on track.
NM

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8077
  • Person Woman Man Camera TV!
Re: NM
« Reply #777 on: August 23, 2017, 08:09:32 AM »
No Matta....

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2778
Re: NM
« Reply #778 on: August 23, 2017, 08:12:44 AM »
Thank god, this thread is back on track.

Actually, thank hilltopper.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 16020
Re: NM
« Reply #779 on: August 23, 2017, 08:14:52 AM »
A thread about nothing can go off track?     Seems vaguely Seinfeld-ian.   
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

rocky_warrior

  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6734
Re: NM
« Reply #780 on: August 23, 2017, 08:44:45 AM »
Did someone say train wreck?



Speaking of, I wish they staged more train wrecks theses days....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush,_Texas

Lazar's Headband

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
Re: NM
« Reply #781 on: August 23, 2017, 08:51:23 AM »
Did someone say train wreck?



Speaking of, I wish they staged more train wrecks theses days....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush,_Texas

This is how my colon felt the last time I ate at Arby's.

mikekinsellaMVP

  • Registered User
  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
Re: NM
« Reply #782 on: August 23, 2017, 09:02:00 AM »
For those of you who missed out on Monday's eclipse, fear not.  The next total eclipse in the US will be on Monday April 8, 2024.  Indianapolis will be in the path of totality, so you can witness two awesome events in person on the same day: an eclipse and MU's sixth-straight national title.  (Dallas is also in the path should the NCAA want to consider somewhere else.)

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5961
Re: NM
« Reply #783 on: August 23, 2017, 10:07:31 AM »
For those of you who missed out on Monday's eclipse, fear not.  The next total eclipse in the US will be on Monday April 8, 2024.  Indianapolis will be in the path of totality, so you can witness two awesome events in person on the same day: an eclipse and MU's sixth-straight national title.  (Dallas is also in the path should the NCAA want to consider somewhere else.)

Damn... if you want a hotel room in Indy for less than $750/night that weekend, better make reservations soon.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

barfolomew

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
Re: NM
« Reply #784 on: August 23, 2017, 10:24:13 AM »
For those of you who missed out on Monday's eclipse, fear not.  The next total eclipse in the US will be on Monday April 8, 2024.  Indianapolis will be in the path of totality, so you can witness two awesome events in person on the same day: an eclipse and MU's sixth-straight national title.  (Dallas is also in the path should the NCAA want to consider somewhere else.)

Meh. I'll just wait for the Sept 2099 totality that goes through MKE.

Jack Wojciechowski will be holding a special midnight madness that day that will honor his father's 16 national championships and the 12 of his own, before he hands the coaching reins over to his own son, Stevie.
Numen Flamenco

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5961
Re: NM
« Reply #785 on: August 23, 2017, 10:36:10 AM »
Meh. I'll just wait for the Sept 2099 totality that goes through MKE.

Jack Wojciechowski will be holding a special midnight madness that day that will honor his father's 16 national championships and the 12 of his own, before he hands the coaching reins over to his own son, Stevie.

However, all of that will be overshadowed by the Scoop debate on whether MU should move to Milwaukee's new NBA expansion team's arena or to continue playing at the nearly 40-year old Thunderdome (for which 21 of those national championship teams called it home).
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #786 on: August 23, 2017, 10:37:28 AM »
Ever been in a Turkish prison?

Billy Hayes??


Death on call

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #787 on: August 23, 2017, 10:49:53 AM »
Just because the South considered themselves so, doesn't make it so.  The Constitution is ratified in full, you cannot pick and choose which provisions you follow and which you do not.


How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.

The people's ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession.

Most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government.

The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state.

Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.

Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified.

Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession.

Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.

Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power.

Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.

His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”

As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.

By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.


Death on call

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #788 on: August 23, 2017, 11:52:18 AM »
Great, I'd love to read them.  Spirited debate is good and I look forward to chances to increase my knowledge base.

Just because the South considered themselves so, doesn't make it so.  The Constitution is ratified in full, you cannot pick and choose which provisions you follow and which you do not.


Supreme Court rulings[edit]
Texas v. White[58] was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court's decision, on April 15, 1869.[60] Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:

“   Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.[61]   ”
However, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".[61][62]


In the Texas v. White decision, Chase implicitly reasoned that the Union was an “indissoluble” contract between the “American people” and the federal government, or in this case the people of Texas and the federal government.

All contracts are intended to be perpetual. But if this were the case, how could nine States ratify a new Constitution while four States remained part of another Union in clear violation of the language of the Articles of Confederation.

Changes to the Articles required the consent of all thirteen States, not nine, and thus the Constitution can be viewed, in part, as an act of secession.

Moreover, James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. “We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole… .”

The Constitution was framed by the unanimous consent of the States present in convention assembled in Philadelphia, but it had no teeth until the States, in convention, ratified it.

Even at that point, Madison suggested, the States could not bind the rest into accepting the document or remaining in the Union. The Constitution does not have a coercive principle, as Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut wrote in 1788 expressing fear that only "Coercion of Arms" in relation to a delinquent state. Ellsworth wrote, "This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and the bad, the innocent and the guilty, in the same calamity.”

Ellsworth recognized, as did the majority of the founding generation, that force did not destroy sovereignty. It created artificial supremacy, but sovereignty, the basic tenant of the founding, could not be surrendered in such a manner.

Sovereignty, in fact, cannot be surrendered at all; it can be delegated, as in the powers granted to the general government in Article I, but never surrendered.

Waging war “against them (the States)” is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be “protected” by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion.

Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did.

If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government.

Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void.

The “one people” argument was dissected by John Taylor of Caroline and Abel P. Upshur in their respective commentaries on the document.

In his New Views of the Constitution of the United States, Taylor contended that the continuity between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution reinforced the sovereignty of the states, and declared that, “There are many states in America, but no state of America, nor any people of an American state. A constitution for America or Americans, would therefore have been similar to a constitution for Utopia or Utopians.”

This view is in sharp contrast to Chase, who argued that continuity maintained a “perpetual” Union.

Taylor wrote, “This construction bestows the same meaning upon the same words in our three constituent or elemental instruments, and exhibits the reason why the whole language of the constitution is affianced to the idea of a league between sovereign states, and hostile to that of a consolidated nation.”

Upshur was more direct in his defense of both nullification and secession as a right of the sovereign States.

Published as a direct attack on Story’s polemic, Upshur’s A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government is perhaps the last great commentary of the antebellum period.

Upshur decried the “imaginative construction” of people like Story and Webster and insisted that consolidation was never the aim of the Constitution.

In defending the right so the States to control the government and “interpose” their sovereignty to curtail central authority, Upshur said:

"The checking and controlling influences which afford safety to public liberty, are not to be found in the government itself. The people cannot always protect themselves against their rulers; if they could, no free government, in past times, would have been overthrown.

Power and patronage cannot easily be so limited and defined, as to rob them of their corrupting influences over the public mind. It is truly and wisely remarked by the Federalist, that “a power over a man’s subsistence is a power over his will.”

As little as possible of this power should be entrusted to the federal government, and even that little should be watched by a power authorized and competent to arrest its abuses. That power can be found only in the states.

In this consists the great superiority of the federative system over every other. In that system, the federal government is responsible, not directly to the people en masse, but to the people in their character of distinct political corporations. However easy it may be to steal power from the people, governments do not so readily yield it to one another.

The confederated states confer on their common government only such power as they themselves cannot separately exercise, or such as can be better exercised by that government. They have, therefore, an equal interest, to give it power enough, and to prevent it from assuming too much. In their hands the power of interposition is attended with no danger; it may be safely lodged where there is no interest to abuse it.



During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania outlined “the distinction between a federal and a national supreme government; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties, the latter having a complete and compulsive operation.”

If the Constitution established a federal government, and it did, then the Constitution did not have a “compulsive operation.” In essence, the people of the states in convention could either interpose their sovereignty to arrest the acts of the general government or withdraw from the Union.

Morris, a nationalist, recognized that the states still held sway when he suggested that the Constitution be voted on by state and that the states, not a consolidated people, had to ratify the document.

The Constitution as ratified in 1787 and 1788 is “a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties.” That compact can be unilaterally broken at any point by the same people of the States which ratified it.

Neither the Framers nor the ratifiers believed that the Constitution created a “consolidated nation” as Story suggested.

It was argued in all state ratifying conventions that the opposite was true. The Union was made “more perfect” but never consolidated.

The States still had all powers not delegated to the general government, as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly illustrates, and every State proposed a “Tenth Amendment” in their suggested bill of rights in the months after ratification.

John C. Calhoun wrote that, “I maintain that sovereignty is in its nature indivisible. It is the supreme power in a state, and we might just as well speak of half a square, or half a triangle, as of half a sovereignty.”

In other words, delegated powers were still retained by the people of the States at large for their exercise if they chose to rescind that delegation.  Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part.

If the states had it in 1776 as Jefferson wrote, then they maintain that sovereignty to this day and thus can exercise that sovereignty through an act of interposition or withdraw.

As for those who suggest that a state carved from the common property of the United States does not have the same sovereignty as the original thirteen states, Jefferson made clear in his Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that new states would enter the Union on “equal footing” with the existing states, meaning that they had the same rights, privileges, and immunities as the original thirteen, including the right of interposition and withdrawal.

Jefferson himself authored the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, a clear indication that he believed as much. Kentucky was not one of the original states, but the people of Kentucky had the same right of recourse that the people of Virginia had in opposing the unconstitutional Sedition Act of 1798.

If the argument against this position is correct, then the original thirteen states, themselves pared from the territory of Great Britain, would be illegal and illegitimate. That is not the case.

Secession and interposition—nullification—are healthy discussions to have in a federal republic. Their mere threat can, and has, spurred the central government to reform. Such was the justification for the Second Amendment as well as the state sovereignty issue as a buttress against a too powerful and unjust central government.


Death on call

real chili 83

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7724
Re: NM
« Reply #789 on: August 23, 2017, 12:10:35 PM »

In the Texas v. White decision, Chase implicitly reasoned that the Union was an “indissoluble” contract between the “American people” and the federal government, or in this case the people of Texas and the federal government.

All contracts are intended to be perpetual. But if this were the case, how could nine States ratify a new Constitution while four States remained part of another Union in clear violation of the language of the Articles of Confederation.

Changes to the Articles required the consent of all thirteen States, not nine, and thus the Constitution can be viewed, in part, as an act of secession.

Moreover, James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. “We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole… .”

The Constitution was framed by the unanimous consent of the States present in convention assembled in Philadelphia, but it had no teeth until the States, in convention, ratified it.

Even at that point, Madison suggested, the States could not bind the rest into accepting the document or remaining in the Union. The Constitution does not have a coercive principle, as Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut wrote in 1788 expressing fear that only "Coercion of Arms" in relation to a delinquent state. Ellsworth wrote, "This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and the bad, the innocent and the guilty, in the same calamity.”

Ellsworth recognized, as did the majority of the founding generation, that force did not destroy sovereignty. It created artificial supremacy, but sovereignty, the basic tenant of the founding, could not be surrendered in such a manner.

Sovereignty, in fact, cannot be surrendered at all; it can be delegated, as in the powers granted to the general government in Article I, but never surrendered.

Waging war “against them (the States)” is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be “protected” by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion.

Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did.

If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government.

Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void.

The “one people” argument was dissected by John Taylor of Caroline and Abel P. Upshur in their respective commentaries on the document.

In his New Views of the Constitution of the United States, Taylor contended that the continuity between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution reinforced the sovereignty of the states, and declared that, “There are many states in America, but no state of America, nor any people of an American state. A constitution for America or Americans, would therefore have been similar to a constitution for Utopia or Utopians.”

This view is in sharp contrast to Chase, who argued that continuity maintained a “perpetual” Union.

Taylor wrote, “This construction bestows the same meaning upon the same words in our three constituent or elemental instruments, and exhibits the reason why the whole language of the constitution is affianced to the idea of a league between sovereign states, and hostile to that of a consolidated nation.”

Upshur was more direct in his defense of both nullification and secession as a right of the sovereign States.

Published as a direct attack on Story’s polemic, Upshur’s A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government is perhaps the last great commentary of the antebellum period.

Upshur decried the “imaginative construction” of people like Story and Webster and insisted that consolidation was never the aim of the Constitution.

In defending the right so the States to control the government and “interpose” their sovereignty to curtail central authority, Upshur said:

"The checking and controlling influences which afford safety to public liberty, are not to be found in the government itself. The people cannot always protect themselves against their rulers; if they could, no free government, in past times, would have been overthrown.

Power and patronage cannot easily be so limited and defined, as to rob them of their corrupting influences over the public mind. It is truly and wisely remarked by the Federalist, that “a power over a man’s subsistence is a power over his will.”

As little as possible of this power should be entrusted to the federal government, and even that little should be watched by a power authorized and competent to arrest its abuses. That power can be found only in the states.

In this consists the great superiority of the federative system over every other. In that system, the federal government is responsible, not directly to the people en masse, but to the people in their character of distinct political corporations. However easy it may be to steal power from the people, governments do not so readily yield it to one another.

The confederated states confer on their common government only such power as they themselves cannot separately exercise, or such as can be better exercised by that government. They have, therefore, an equal interest, to give it power enough, and to prevent it from assuming too much. In their hands the power of interposition is attended with no danger; it may be safely lodged where there is no interest to abuse it.



During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania outlined “the distinction between a federal and a national supreme government; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties, the latter having a complete and compulsive operation.”

If the Constitution established a federal government, and it did, then the Constitution did not have a “compulsive operation.” In essence, the people of the states in convention could either interpose their sovereignty to arrest the acts of the general government or withdraw from the Union.

Morris, a nationalist, recognized that the states still held sway when he suggested that the Constitution be voted on by state and that the states, not a consolidated people, had to ratify the document.

The Constitution as ratified in 1787 and 1788 is “a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties.” That compact can be unilaterally broken at any point by the same people of the States which ratified it.

Neither the Framers nor the ratifiers believed that the Constitution created a “consolidated nation” as Story suggested.

It was argued in all state ratifying conventions that the opposite was true. The Union was made “more perfect” but never consolidated.

The States still had all powers not delegated to the general government, as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly illustrates, and every State proposed a “Tenth Amendment” in their suggested bill of rights in the months after ratification.

John C. Calhoun wrote that, “I maintain that sovereignty is in its nature indivisible. It is the supreme power in a state, and we might just as well speak of half a square, or half a triangle, as of half a sovereignty.”

In other words, delegated powers were still retained by the people of the States at large for their exercise if they chose to rescind that delegation.  Sovereignty can never be divided or surrendered in part.

If the states had it in 1776 as Jefferson wrote, then they maintain that sovereignty to this day and thus can exercise that sovereignty through an act of interposition or withdraw.

As for those who suggest that a state carved from the common property of the United States does not have the same sovereignty as the original thirteen states, Jefferson made clear in his Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that new states would enter the Union on “equal footing” with the existing states, meaning that they had the same rights, privileges, and immunities as the original thirteen, including the right of interposition and withdrawal.

Jefferson himself authored the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, a clear indication that he believed as much. Kentucky was not one of the original states, but the people of Kentucky had the same right of recourse that the people of Virginia had in opposing the unconstitutional Sedition Act of 1798.

If the argument against this position is correct, then the original thirteen states, themselves pared from the territory of Great Britain, would be illegal and illegitimate. That is not the case.

Secession and interposition—nullification—are healthy discussions to have in a federal republic. Their mere threat can, and has, spurred the central government to reform. Such was the justification for the Second Amendment as well as the state sovereignty issue as a buttress against a too powerful and unjust central government.

Keefe, how's the Arbys in Seattle?

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #790 on: August 23, 2017, 12:15:04 PM »
Keefe, how's the Arbys in Seattle?

I stopped there, entirely because of the NM thread endorsements. It was after 1400 and I was thrilled to find that they have a very robust $1 "Happy Hour" menu.

A couple Jalapeno Beefs washed down by an Orange Dreamsicle shake...all for $3.

A man can do worse. A lot worse I tell you.


Death on call

real chili 83

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7724
Re: NM
« Reply #791 on: August 23, 2017, 12:16:05 PM »
Next week I am in Green Bay for a couple of days on business, and get to entertain some customers.

What's the best steakhouse in Green Bay?  Favre's Steakhouse, Republic Chophouse or Prime Quarter.

This will be my first meal post Whole30.  It should test of fortitude for the digestive system. 

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #792 on: August 23, 2017, 12:17:18 PM »
Next week I am in Green Bay for a couple of days on business, and get to entertain some customers.

What's the best steakhouse in Green Bay?  Favre's Steakhouse, Republic Chophouse or Prime Quarter.

This will be my first meal post Whole30.  It should test of fortitude for the digestive system.

So what? Arby's isn't good enough for your clients??


Death on call

real chili 83

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7724
Re: NM
« Reply #793 on: August 23, 2017, 12:18:46 PM »
So what? Arby's isn't good enough for your clients??

They don't serve Hendrick's at Arbys.  Haven't had a whiff of booze for 30 days.

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #794 on: August 23, 2017, 12:46:08 PM »
They don't serve Hendrick's at Arbys.  Haven't had a whiff of booze for 30 days.

Hendricks is great but, after a 30 day dry spell, I would slake my thirst with some Laphroaig!

 


Death on call

keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
  • "Death From Above"
Re: NM
« Reply #795 on: August 23, 2017, 12:50:09 PM »
BTW, the brisket was outstanding. I tried to post a pic but it didn't take. But 14 pounds went fast.



Death on call

Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5376
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: NM
« Reply #796 on: August 23, 2017, 01:07:37 PM »
Next week I am in Green Bay for a couple of days on business, and get to entertain some customers.

What's the best steakhouse in Green Bay?  Favre's Steakhouse, Republic Chophouse or Prime Quarter.

This will be my first meal post Whole30.  It should test of fortitude for the digestive system.
Did you have dinner at Des Moines?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 06:17:22 PM by News- Grimes dreams MU »

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8077
  • Person Woman Man Camera TV!
Re: NM
« Reply #797 on: August 23, 2017, 01:07:38 PM »
ND sucks.

The Lens

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3599
Re: NM
« Reply #798 on: August 23, 2017, 01:16:27 PM »
Next week I am in Green Bay for a couple of days on business, and get to entertain some customers.

What's the best steakhouse in Green Bay?  Favre's Steakhouse, Republic Chophouse or Prime Quarter.

This will be my first meal post Whole30.  It should test of fortitude for the digestive system.

If your clients want to geek out on Packers stuff, take them to Favre's (which may go by a new name now as the liscensing deal is close to expiring).

If they are more "the scene" type guys, take them to Republic.  It's downtown and a little cooler. 

Food at both is fine.  Not outstanding but solid.  I would avoid Prime Q. 

Where you really should take them is Chives in Suamico.  Just 10-15 north of Lambeau.  They have 2-3 really nice steaks plus other items.  Last week I had their steak frites which was a huge ribeye.  A guy in my group had the filet and really liked it. 

It's an old farmhouse and hands down the best meal in GB. 
The Teal Train has left the station and Lens is day drinking in the bar car    ---- Dr. Blackheart

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: NM
« Reply #799 on: August 23, 2017, 01:17:38 PM »
How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.

The people's ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession.

Most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government.

The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state.

Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.

Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified.

Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession.

Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.

Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power.

Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.

His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”

As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.

By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.


So are you going to admit that you stole this entire work almost word for word, without attribution, from this page?

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/990930.shtml

Am I supposed to be impressed by this?

 

feedback