She did not agitate. She sat where she wanted to just like any other passenger.
Rosa Parks Statue Erected
- Thread starter katzgar
- Start date
She did not agitate. She sat where she wanted to just like any other passenger.
That's called an excuse for wanting to be a criminal.
Something isn't unjust simply because you say so.
Nicely said. I like it.
ZILCHMONGER
Verified User
To take the life of another could be a criminal act. If I shot a home intruder and killed him would you brand me a criminal?
I am not going to discuss this any longer with you since we will never see eye to eye on this. We can agree to disagree on this topic. My main interest in entering into this was to counteract the misinformation regarding the motivation of Southerners and their involvement in the War Between The States
jimmymccready
Verified User
Good history books condemn the South for the Civil War.
You need to read and think, zilchmonger.
You need to read and think, zilchmonger.
According to my State's laws, defending yourself against an intruder is within the law. You have no duty to retreat and you can use deadly force in your home, vehicle, and place of business without being held criminally liable. What that means is you wouldn't be a criminal because the LAW says you aren't one.
With Rosa Parks, the LAW, whether you agree with or not, said she had to sit in the back of the bus.
That's what several on this thread have indicated they believe. Their argument centers around something being unjust and the belief that if they, THEY, claim it is an unjust law, it automatically makes it an unjust law.
ZILCHMONGER
Verified User
ZILCHMONGER
Verified User
Depends on the law. Prior to 1865 the law said slaves had to be returned to their rightful owners. Were those people who refused to return slaves criminals?
If one does disobey the law for whatever reason they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. I have not said that Rosa Parks should not have been arrested. I said she did the right thing in not meekly taking her seat in the back of the bus.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Rosa Parks statue erected....
Donald Trump statue- Unerected....
Donald Trump statue- Unerected....
ZILCHMONGER
Verified User
OK, there was a law in Montgomery. It should be noted that Parks was arrested and fined for her transgression. The true result of her actions was the uproar and subsequent lawsuit to get the law repealed, an action the Supreme Court had a hand it. It also lead to the rise of Martin Luther King and his efforts to end segregation. So, she didn't "get away" with breaking the law. She paid the legal penalty for doing so but served as a catalyst for the entire civil rights movement, and for that deserves recognition.
ZILCHMONGER
Verified User
Try to learn how to spell, its Bumpkin.
Where in the Constitution does it say once a state, always a state? There was no law against seceding from the Union. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution demanding that once you became a state you could not leave the Union.
The rest of the U.S. would gladly change the Constitution if places like California, New York and Idaho wanted to secede.....
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Try not to be an asshole!
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
The Supreme Court weighed in on the secession issue in Texas v. White in 1869, declaring it unconstitutional. BUMPKIN ASS IDIOT!
Try to do your homework and study American History before you go running your mouth OK?
The law on the subject is that a state may not unilaterally secede from the "more perfect union" that was created after the articles of confederation
were replaced with the US Constitution. The case law arises after the civil war with reference to reconstruction litigation. The seminal case is Texas v White
and there are close to a dozen appellate court decisions in accord that each act of unilateral secession of each state was null and void.
Obviously there are two ways to legally secede (1) gaining assent of the USA or (2) waging a war against her (illegally) and ratifying your own act as legal in your new country thereafter, and making the USA, if it still exists recognize you by our laws. It could be a term of USA surrender I suppose. But basically, unilateral secession is illegal according to US law.
Not only was secession illegal, according to Scotus, it didn't even really happen. LOL. It was a void act. All dead southerners never drew a breath of confederate air!
were replaced with the US Constitution. The case law arises after the civil war with reference to reconstruction litigation. The seminal case is Texas v White
and there are close to a dozen appellate court decisions in accord that each act of unilateral secession of each state was null and void.
Obviously there are two ways to legally secede (1) gaining assent of the USA or (2) waging a war against her (illegally) and ratifying your own act as legal in your new country thereafter, and making the USA, if it still exists recognize you by our laws. It could be a term of USA surrender I suppose. But basically, unilateral secession is illegal according to US law.
Not only was secession illegal, according to Scotus, it didn't even really happen. LOL. It was a void act. All dead southerners never drew a breath of confederate air!
Not at all nor can you show me the words where it says so.
So did Justice Scalia.