sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
What I like is the non capitalization of United....meaning it wasn't a title of a single entity but sovereign entities united in a goal.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Happy Birthday USA - 4th of July
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
What I like is the non capitalization of United....meaning it wasn't a title of a single entity but sovereign entities united in a goal.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Oh, that was sneaky.I was about to demand a cite and link, then realized the forum rule is silent about old laws no longer in effect.
Just a general interest point. A number of readers might not know, but at the time of the founding, the words confederacy and federation meant the same thing. At that time, nobody would have made a distinction between a federal system and a confederacy.
But, the US constitution introduced a new wrinkle. A federation or confederation was an alliance between sovereign states. The constitution set up a central government that really wasn't a federation. Thus, the meaning of the word federal shifted a bit to be applied to the US system. If you poke around into this subject a little bit, you'll start to understand why there was so much arguing about the powers of the US central government vs state sovereignty in the early days of the republic, the arguments about secession of northern states before the civil war, the southern states at the civil war, and coming forward to even today.
Some (my self several years ago too) have not learned the united States existed before the current constitution, George Washington technically wasn't the first president of the united States.
Yep, the slight change of federal has done a huge amount of damage to what a federation is supposed to be.
Buzzz - wrong answer.Oh, that was sneaky.
--snipped--
Rule #5 begins, "If you state a rule of law......." Nowhere is there an exception for a law that has been superseded or overridden. Point is if you are talking specifically about the old law/rule, then it is incumbent on you to cite it. Previous called decision by John has allowed no cite when the reference is considered common knowledge.
However, some posts here are straying off topic as the thread was intended to be a celebration party, not how we got there. I obviously wasn't clear enough on that. The timing on my part wasn't the best either (too close to the 4[SUP]th[/SUP]) as many are out and about with their friends and family (not seeing this).
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Ah, yes! Secession Day! Now, I have something to celebrate--secession from England! Where's my scotch?
Historical Note: While its called the American Revolution, its really about secession. You see, if it was really a revolution, the Americans would have sailed to England, deposed the king, and and taken over the government. They didn't. They separated themselves from England. Secession is the more apt term.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Humorous Side Note:
Met a Brit very recently (Thursday). Somebody asked her whether she would celebrate the 4th of July. She playfully claimed that some Brits celebrate getting rid of those troublesome colonials.
Met a Brit very recently (Thursday). Somebody asked her whether she would celebrate the 4th of July. She playfully claimed that some Brits celebrate getting rid of those troublesome colonials.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Humorous Side Note:
Met a Brit very recently (Thursday). Somebody asked her whether she would celebrate the 4th of July. She playfully claimed that some Brits celebrate getting rid of those troublesome colonials.
LMAO, she sounds funny.
Last edited:
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
Humorous Side Note:
Met a Brit very recently (Thursday). Somebody asked her whether she would celebrate the 4th of July. She playfully claimed that some Brits celebrate getting rid of those troublesome colonials.
Oddly, this is dang near proof that that both the revolution and the civil war were unnecessary.
The brits could not hold their slaves for long (their colonies). If left to their own devices, neither could the south.
Employees are always cheaper than slaves.