VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:09:47 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (64 lines)
There was not supposed to be any confusion. My apologies for my disjointed
thought processes form time to time. I was only attempting to note that the
ex post facto rule was next to Habeas Corpus. To me these two rules are
among the most important that our ancestors saw fit to put into the
Constitution. Our English law had been one of whims and rule changes to fit
an occasion. And with these laws - rules we were protected from laws
allowing our persons to seizure and illegal incarceration. 
BTW, some of our research from Texas, we believe that although Booth DID
Shoot Lincoln, he was instigated into this action by VP Johnson and some
other members of the Cabinet to rid the country of Lincoln. 
I hope many of the southern contingents of this group appreciate how
disastrous Reconstruction was to our part of the country. Johnson and the
rest of his cabal certainly provided a horrible postscript to the war. The
only good part that came of this war was the dissolution of slavery. 

John Philip Adams
Texas 
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Constitution

Mr. Adams--

I am confused by your post.  I was responding to the question
where to find the Habeus Corpus clauses in the Constitution,
and likewise to various misrepresentations of the Court's
finding in Ex Parte Milligan.  I am quite willing to take your
word for it that we can find the sentence you quote
immediately following the Habeus Corpus sentence--but I I
don't understand why you have drawn our attention to it?

I am not trying to pick a fight here--I just don't see the
connection.

All best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:30:21 -0600
>From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Re: The Constitution  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>SAME ARTICLE next line down. 
>"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
>Why isn't everyone paying attention to this, especially as it
relates to so
>many Tax matters.
>JPAdams
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US