If the Romney's hired household help from a service, the amount paid for the help would not be set out in their tax returns. Only the wages paid to the four women directly hired by them would have to be reported. To compare Ann Romney's burdens to that of the average stay-at-home mom or the more-than-average working mom is a joke. To compare Rosen's relationship to the Democratic party to Limbaugh's to the Republicans is rediculous.
My try may be nice but yours was pathetic based upon ignorance of law and history. The Wisconsin action of its Supreme Court was not nullification, but a classic and common case of a judicial finding of unconstutionality which in turn was overruled by a higher court. Nullification is a LEGISLATIVE act, requiring a statute or ordinance enacted by an inferior jurisdiction stating that a law of the superior jurisdiction is declared null and void for any reason satisfactory to the legislative body so acting. If a SC court judge should declare that the health care provision of federal law requiring the purchase of health insurance to be unconstittional, this is NOT nullification. If the SC legislature passes an act declaring that that provision will be of no effect in SC, for any reason, that IS nullification. Do you really think that the cries of the tea partiers to find the health care provision to be unconstitutional renders them nullifiers in the tradition of Calhoun and the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification of federal tariffs? The act of private persons and local or state individual officers in refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act is a classic case of civil disobedience, repeated countless times and contexts in American history, and in no way Nullification.
The refusal of some in the north to refuse to obey the Fugitive Slave Law is not nullification, but civil disobedience. Nullification is the doctrine that a political entity can render the law of a superior political entity of no force and effect in its jurisdiction. Thus if Massachusetts passed a law that the Fugitive Slave Law shall be of no legal force in that state, we would have a case of nullification in the John Calhoun style. That never happened. Hunter's confusion of the doctrines of Nullification and Civil Disoberience indicates he must have been "educated" in South Carolina (or maybe Mississippi).
You are confusing the different motives of the North and the South which led to the Civil War. The South's motive was solely to preserve the institution of negro slavery and to permit its expansion into new territories. But Mr. Sale is correct that the North's motive, for the most part, until late in 1862, was the preservation of the Union. The current lie that slavery was not the motivating force behind secession is made laughable by a reading of the justification for secession as published by the South Carolina Secession Convention. It repeatedly mentions slavery and the hostility to slavery in the North and makes no reference to any other cause. That State's rights or tariffs were the causes of the secession of the South is in the same class of fairy tales as the "birther" conspiracy theories of the current right wing fringe. But the motive of the South in seceeding is not the mirror image of the North in resisting secession. Lincoln himself said that he would preserve slavery in the South if that was necessary to save the Union. As often happens, events overtook the justifications of both sides and by the end of 1862, the end of slavery became a war object of the North, and years later, the South's apologists chose to forget their real reason for fighting as they learned to be ashamed of their support of slavery in 1860-1861.
Obama bombed Palestine? Gee, I missed that one. About time too!
Was it Gaza or the West Bank? Maybe it was Tel Aviv---after all, that's Palestine too---ask any Arab and he'll tell you so. Maybe Shannon has a concussion from shooting off his cannon.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper