The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Fishrrman on March 02, 2021, 05:06:05 pm
-
http://www.floppingaces.net/2021/03/02/secession-is-a-radical-solution-that-sadly-doesnt-seem-so-radical-any-more/
Secession Is A Radical Solution That Sadly Doesn’t Seem So Radical Any More
by Vince
March 2, 2021
(http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/TornFlag2.jpg)
excerpt:
======
America was fundamentally built on freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Freedom of speech, religion, the right to peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government. But it’s not just the Constitution itself that makes America. It’s ideas that flow from it and our history. Free markets, private property, entrepreneurship, 4th of July, baseball, high school debate team, cars, suburbs, bake sales, Thanksgiving dinner, spelling bees, Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas antlers, the National Anthem and more.
All of that, both the actual rights and the ideas beyond them all are under attack in America of 2021. Whether petty tyrants using the Covid hysteria to eviscerate our freedoms of religion and assembly and to crush our businesses or social media oligarchs shutting down debate in the 21st century town square or education departments causing Martin Luther King to spin in his grave as they abandon his dream, the America of Norman Rockwell paintings is being torn apart idea by idea by idea.
This past summer Americans were helpless as cities from coast to coast burned in response to the killing of George Floyd and they were told the violence was understandable and “mostly peaceful protestsâ€. This past year many Americans saw their lives upended as their jobs or businesses were destroyed, their families turned into strangers and churches and schools turned into ghost towns as a result of a disease with a 99.99% survival rate, but we were told that America was facing the gravest public health threat in history. Now we’re watching as children are taught that math is racist, that hard work is racist, and there is no difference between boys and girls and we’re told that all of this is healthy and reasonable.
...
America has become a nation where objective reality no longer matters, where the free exchange of ideas is no longer allowed and where the exercise of an individual’s rights are tolerated only to the degree that they do not hurt the feelings of some aggrieved victim class. America has become a bizzarro world where everything from science to math and history to law are no longer constants upon which society rests but rather malleable frameworks for the destruction of everything that does not comport with todays’ woke mores.
And so it is thorough this looking glass one wonders what is the solution?
More at URL above...
-
Is it time for a New Continental Congress yet?
(read up on what the first one was about...)
-
The Constitution forbids state secession. Individuals have the freedom to secede. But they can't take their land with them. When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.
Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.
The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them. Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.
-
The Constitution forbids state secession. Individuals have the freedom to secede. But they can't take their land with them. When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.
Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.
The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them. Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.
Think for a minute how a successful succession would play out - presumably restoring the primacy of the Constitution, the resulting new country would succeed economically and socially far beyond what the progressive rat-run remnant of the nation left behind is capable of, thus attracting brainstem leftists (who do not understand the cause and effect) to immigrate to the new promised land, rapidly turning it into the same kind of sh*thole they ruined then abandoned.
No, its gotta be here and no farther.
-
The Constitution forbids state secession.
Would you be so kind as to direct me to the language in the constitution that says that? I have searched diligently and cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra which locations I am unable to discern.
Thanks in advance!
@Sled Dog
-
Think for a minute how a successful succession would play out - presumably restoring the primacy of the Constitution, the resulting new country would succeed economically and socially far beyond what the progressive rat-run remnant of the nation left behind is capable of, thus attracting brainstem leftists (who do not understand the cause and effect) to immigrate to the new promised land, rapidly turning it into the same kind of sh*thole they ruined then abandoned.
No, its gotta be here and no farther.
Secession won't be successful, so there's not much point in imagining if it could be.
1) This ain't the 19th Century any more, communications are instantaneous and our enemies would gladly ally openly with China and Russia to defeat the Americans, just like they are doing covertly right now.
2) In 1860 the United States was still a junior power, as far as the major powers were concerned. They were entertained, but forebore to interfere. Today, the United States is THE global superpower. A civil war in the US would spell global chaos and the minor powers nipping at our heels would most definitely seek advantage by piling on.
3) States seeking secession are already infected with the Rodent Virus. They will not escape it by shutting their borders...which they can't close because of economics.
4) Why did the Fouinders give us the Constitution in the first place? Because the states were failing to work together as a unit and the balkanized colonies would have been easy pickings for France and Britain to re-steal piecemeal.
5) The one remarkably successful act of secession in modern history wasn't the story of a people successfully telling their parent country to buzz off. If was the act of those colonists forestalling their execution while they desperately sought the aid of a power nearly equal to the one they were thumbing their noses at, and it was the intervention of France to punish England that made the US truly independent. Ain't nobody goin' to help out the States in Secession this time. China wouldn't let anyone do that, even if any other country agreed with the Americans' goals...which they don't. Not a single country supports the American ideal. We defeat the Rodents on our ground, despite foreign efforts to suppress us, and that's our only option.
So, nah, secession is for children. Those people need to stay and fight.
-
Would you be so kind as to direct me to the language in the constitution that says that? I have searched diligently and cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra which locations I am unable to discern.
Thanks in advance!
@Sled Dog
You never read the Constitution?
Preamble
We the People
Not "Us States".
Article I, Section 8, Clause whatever (15) directs the Congress of the United States to quell insurrection.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Article I, Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
States can't make armies, enter treaties, impose tariffs, etc, etc, etc, cannot perform the acts required of a independent sovereign nation.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
The president shall defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The Constitution applies to all citizens, wherever they may live.
Article 6,
The Supremacy Clause. The Constitution supersedes all other laws. Including misguided attempts by a state to declare the Constitution null and void.
-
You never read the Constitution?
PreambleNot "Us States".
Article I, Section 8, Clause whatever (15) directs the Congress of the United States to quell insurrection.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1
Article I, Section 10
States can't make armies, enter treaties, impose tariffs, etc, etc, etc, cannot perform the acts required of a independent sovereign nation.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
The president shall defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States.
Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1
The Constitution applies to all citizens, wherever they may live.
Article 6,
The Supremacy Clause. The Constitution supersedes all other laws. Including misguided attempts by a state to declare the Constitution null and void.
Thanks for the reply @Sled Dog!
I have read the Constitution many times and have the ability to interpret the English language REALLY well.
I still don't see one word in all that which would prohibit a sovereign state from withdrawing from a union it had freely joined.
"Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government.
The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common..."
“Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent."
Both excerpted from:
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:
WITH
NOTES OF REFERENCE,
TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
AND OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
IN FIVE VOLUMES.
WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME,
CONTAINING
SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY
TO FORM A CONNECTED
VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA,
AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION.
BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER,
PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND
ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL,
NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET.
ROBERT CARR, PRINTER.
1803.
-
This might be splitting hairs, but while individuals have the right to rebel against an unjust government, states do not have the right to unilaterally secede.
-
Thanks for the reply @Sled Dog!
I have read the Constitution many times and have the ability to interpret the English language REALLY well.
I still don't see one word in all that which would prohibit a sovereign state from withdrawing from a union it had freely joined.
They were pointed out to you.
Nobody can make you drink if you don't want to.
The Constitution is still the Constitution. It's words have not been changed.
Doesn't matter what some hack in 1803 wrote. I'm not going to go into a quote war. I'm merely going to point out that the Constitution in no place authorizes the states or any other agency the authority to sever the People from the protections of the Constitution.
-
This might be splitting hairs, but while individuals have the right to rebel against an unjust government, states do not have the right to unilaterally secede.
Secession involves two actions:
Divorcing persons not in favor of secession from the Constitution.
Forcibly removing the tracts of land occupied by the seceding state forcibly from the geographical map of the United States.
Nowhere in the Constitution is either action permitted. In fact, acts of rebellion are clearly not allowed under the Constitution.
The whole intent behind the Constitution was to end the centrifugal impetus acting on the Thirteen Colonies and to weave those increasingly independent states back into a singular unified and strong nation.
Secession is not necessary.
Secession is not desirable.
Secession is not allowed.
And, most importantly, secession will not be allowed to occur. Nor would it resolve any issues if it is attempted.
Secession is a fool's romantic escape into impossible fantasy, an avoidance of the reality that rescuing this nation for our posterity is going to require hard work and heartbreak. Sole alleged adults can't deal with reality. Rodents drink the bottle labeled "racism" to cope, otherwise devoted Americans dream of running away and hiding in imaginary holes, as if the monsters among us won't know where the holes are.
-
They were pointed out to you.
Nobody can make you drink if you don't want to.
The Constitution is still the Constitution. It's words have not been changed.
Doesn't matter what some hack in 1803 wrote. I'm not going to go into a quote war. I'm merely going to point out that the Constitution in no place authorizes the states or any other agency the authority to sever the People from the protections of the Constitution.
What that "hack" wrote back in 1803 was THE law reference library in this land for 50 years! Only after all the founders were dead could the revisionists work their magic to make this country into something our founders never intended.
"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "
Abel Upshur, The Federal government: Its true nature and character
(Abel Upshur served as Secretary of the Navy 1841-43)
But you can continue to swallow the revisionist BS for as long as you like.
-
The Constitution forbids state secession. Individuals have the freedom to secede. But they can't take their land with them. When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.
Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.
The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them. Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.
That is not a fact,
One other fact is that a sovereign state entered a contract with other states. It is not a suicide pact as the state remains sovereign to decide what is best for itself if that contract is not honored.
And it is a fact it has not been by other parties.
-
Is it time for a New Continental Congress yet?
(read up on what the first one was about...)
@Fishrrman
We will know in 2024 if the current Republic is worth saving,or if we have to cut loose the dead weight.
-
The Constitution forbids state secession. Individuals have the freedom to secede. But they can't take their land with them. When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.
Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.
The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them. Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.
@Sled Dog
If you allow the left to stop you,you were never serious about it to start with. Secession isn't an alternate form of kissy-face. It is a declaration of war.
-
The Constitution forbids state secession.
@Sled Dog
HorseHillary! Which words in the expression "form a voluntary union" is it that confuses you?
-
What that "hack" wrote back in 1803 was THE law reference library in this land for 50 years!
And what you just quoted was an expressed opinion of no greater validity than when Roberts decided that ObamaCare was Constitutional.
'
The Constitution forbids rebellion and requires the Congress to suppress it.
Any opinion that states otherwise is not consistent with the Constitution and is thus what we layman call "wrong".
I don't care if it was Blackstone, or a Redstone missile. The opinion was wrong.
-
@Sled Dog
HorseHillary! Which words in the expression "form a voluntary union" is it that confuses you?
There's a difference between "forming a voluntary union" and denying the citizens of a state their protections under the Constitution.
What part of the fact that the Constitution was written to protect the citizens eludes you?
Where in the Constitution is any state allowed to deny their citizens their freedom of religion, their freedom to associate (including their freedom to associate with Americans as Americans who live in other states), their right to keep and bear arms, their equal protection under the law?
Where in the Constitution can a state law, even one as stupid as a Bill of Secession, supersede the rights of those citizens protected by the Constitution? And citizens cannot be protected by the Constitution if the states were allowed to unilaterally and abritrarily extract their entire geography from the union voluntarily entered into.
Voluntary entrance does not automatically grant voluntary exit at a later date.
The State of Loseranna was PURCHASED by the United States as a territory from France. What lawful right does the state of Loseranna, incorporated under federal law, have to extract it's geography and citizens from the geopolitical entity of the United States? The territory of the State of Tennessee was claimed by the United States at the end of the Revolutionary war (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Treaty of Paris called the western boundary of the new nation as the Ohio and Mississippi rivers?) under what basis did the Tennesseans claim to be able to take that property from the United States?
Yeah. The people of those places can secede all they want to. All they have to do is pick up their feet and start walking away. Since they don't want to fight to save America, good riddance to them. They shouldn't expect to be allowed back in, though. And how are they any different than Rosie O'Donuts and the other Hollyweird trash always whining about what they'll do if the American wins the next presidential election? We never see them leaving, either.
-
And what you just quoted was an expressed opinion of no greater validity than when Roberts decided that ObamaCare was Constitutional.
'
The Constitution forbids rebellion and requires the Congress to suppress it.
Any opinion that states otherwise is not consistent with the Constitution and is thus what we layman call "wrong".
I don't care if it was Blackstone, or a Redstone missile. The opinion was wrong.
Then why, pray tell, did NO ONE challenge those words prior to the early 1860s. A period when a great many of those in the founding era were still alive? I cannot find a single instance of anyone doing that but perhaps you can show it to me.
Never mind, I already know the answer, They ARE NOT wrong. YOU are!
@Sled Dog
-
@Sled Dog
If you allow the left to stop you,you were never serious about it to start with. Secession isn't an alternate form of kissy-face. It is a declaration of war.
Now you're getting to the money shots.
No "secession" has ever happened without war.
Ask Tom, the Declaration Guy.
Ask Jeff, the Extra President the Democrats had under Lincoln.
Don't pretend that some new confederation of states in secession would be simply allowed to part ways. Not only is there way too much at stake, but the fascists of the Usurping Party Of Senile Old Men and Slutty Tramp Biracial Whores would suffer gigantic enlargement of the spleen if any dared to escape their totalitarian urges.
So secession means war.
Which means the fools discussing secession should first discuss how they personally are prepared for war.
Maybe some people need to re-learn the Star Spangled Banner? The later verses.
Oh, and BTW, people DID present opposing opinions, opinions against secession, in the 1850's, including prominent residents of the southern states. But that means nothing and I'm not going to do your homework for you. I will point out merely that I've cited the Constitution itself, you have not done so even once.
I'm waiting for you to pull the Tenth Amendment Card. You should remember that the Tenth Amendment discusses those rights and privileges not explicitly granted to Congress. Requiring Congress to suppress rebellion is pretty explicit.
-
Then why, pray tell, did NO ONE challenge those words prior to the early 1860s. A period when a great many of those in the founding era were still alive? I cannot find a single instance of anyone doing that but perhaps you can show it to me.
Never mind, I already know the answer, They ARE NOT wrong. YOU are!
@Sled Dog
There wasn't any need to challenge someone's false opinion until such time as the false opinion serves to fuel false actions.
And, yeah, you're committing the fatal logical error of Argument From Authority.
I'm supposed to counter with other authorities who presume to present opposing opinions, and you're frustrated because I'm presenting opposing facts. Makes life hard for the presenter of the fatal flaw, doesn't it?
-
There's a difference between "forming a voluntary union" and denying the citizens of a state their protections under the Constitution.
What part of the fact that the Constitution was written to protect the citizens eludes you?
Where in the Constitution is any state allowed to deny their citizens their freedom of religion, their freedom to associate (including their freedom to associate with Americans as Americans who live in other states), their right to keep and bear arms, their equal protection under the law?
Where in the Constitution can a state law, even one as stupid as a Bill of Secession, supersede the rights of those citizens protected by the Constitution? And citizens cannot be protected by the Constitution if the states were allowed to unilaterally and abritrarily extract their entire geography from the union voluntarily entered into.
Voluntary entrance does not automatically grant voluntary exit at a later date.
The State of Loseranna was PURCHASED by the United States as a territory from France. What lawful right does the state of Loseranna, incorporated under federal law, have to extract it's geography and citizens from the geopolitical entity of the United States? The territory of the State of Tennessee was claimed by the United States at the end of the Revolutionary war (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Treaty of Paris called the western boundary of the new nation as the Ohio and Mississippi rivers?) under what basis did the Tennesseans claim to be able to take that property from the United States?
Yeah. The people of those places can secede all they want to. All they have to do is pick up their feet and start walking away. Since they don't want to fight to save America, good riddance to them. They shouldn't expect to be allowed back in, though. And how are they any different than Rosie O'Donuts and the other Hollyweird trash always whining about what they'll do if the American wins the next presidential election? We never see them leaving, either.
@Sled Dog
Once again,what parts of the words "formed a voluntary union" is it that is confusing you?
-
@Sled Dog
Once again,what parts of the words "formed a voluntary union" is it that is confusing you?
You believe that repeating a question that's already been refuted refutes the refutation?
Interesting.
-
There wasn't any need to challenge someone's false opinion until such time as the false opinion serves to fuel false actions.
And, yeah, you're committing the fatal logical error of Argument From Authority.
I'm supposed to counter with other authorities who presume to present opposing opinions, and you're frustrated because I'm presenting opposing facts. Makes life hard for the presenter of the fatal flaw, doesn't it?
I'll take the unchallenged opinions of the noted authorities (multiple) I have posted over your BS any day my friend. And BTW: leaving a contract agreement that has been grossly abrogated multiple times does not constitute rebellion regardless of your worthless opinions.
-
You believe that repeating a question that's already been refuted refutes the refutation?
Interesting.
@Sled Dog
What *I* find interesting is you seem to think posting multiple paragraphs of babble negates a basic truth.
-
@Sled Dog
What *I* find interesting is you seem to think posting multiple paragraphs of babble negates a basic truth.
What you are not doing is presenting the proper counterpoint and are instead presenting snide remarks as argument.
A man who enlists in the military has voluntarily associated. His contract defines when he may voluntarily terminate his voluntary association.
The states voluntarily entered into an association and agreed to a contract that does not permit any voluntary withdrawal at any time.
And you've still failed to cite any place in that contract that permits self-extraction.
Heck, there's no provision for expulsion, either. Something California should be glad about.
-
What you are not doing is presenting the proper counterpoint and are instead presenting snide remarks as argument.
A man who enlists in the military has voluntarily associated. His contract defines when he may voluntarily terminate his voluntary association.
The states voluntarily entered into an association and agreed to a contract that does not permit any voluntary withdrawal at any time.
And you've still failed to cite any place in that contract that permits self-extraction.
Heck, there's no provision for expulsion, either. Something California should be glad about.
@Sled Dog
Once again,"voluntary union".
Granted,Mr.Lincolns war of aggression and the carpetbagging afterwards pretty much destroyed the original agreement along with the south,but might still does NOT "make right".
-
The Constitution forbids state secession.
Actually, it does not. The military settlement of the (pick your favorite name) War Between the States, Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, forbade it.
-
Actually, it does not. The military settlement of the (pick your favorite name) War Between the States, Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, forbade it.
@The_Reader_David
The war itself was an illegal invasion of sovereign territory.
They got away with it because they won and nobody has had the stones to call it what it was and offer legislation to nullify it.
-
What you are not doing is presenting the proper counterpoint and are instead presenting snide remarks as argument.
A man who enlists in the military has voluntarily associated. His contract defines when he may voluntarily terminate his voluntary association.
The states voluntarily entered into an association and agreed to a contract that does not permit any voluntary withdrawal at any time.
And you've still failed to cite any place in that contract that permits self-extraction.
Heck, there's no provision for expulsion, either. Something California should be glad about.
I really wonder why you continue to persist in an argument in which you have no defense?
Is there some issue with your capability to assimilate data?
-
I really wonder why you continue to persist in an argument in which you have no defense?
Is there some issue with your capability to assimilate data?
Why are you people persisting in prosecuting a process argument when your failure is demonstrably in the realm of facts and reality?
I've presented MY argument. It's called the Constitution.
You've presented no refutation to the Constitution whatsoever.
Again. The Constitution requires the Congress to suppress rebellion. Explain how secession is constitutional when the Constitution requires it's suppression. Cite the clause of the Constitution you are referencing in your response if you wish to be considered a valid participant in the discussion.
Come on, man. Get with the program. Try to hold up your position. Your ad hom responses aren't cutting it.
-
Why are you people persisting in prosecuting a process argument when your failure is demonstrably in the realm of facts and reality?
I've presented MY argument. It's called the Constitution.
You've presented no refutation to the Constitution whatsoever.
Again. The Constitution requires the Congress to suppress rebellion. Explain how secession is constitutional when the Constitution requires it's suppression. Cite the clause of the Constitution you are referencing in your response if you wish to be considered a valid participant in the discussion.
Come on, man. Get with the program. Try to hold up your position. Your ad hom responses aren't cutting it.
For one thing, I do not refute the Constitution. I uphold it.
And a secession is NOT a rebellion, no matter how many times you say it is.
When one enters into a contract, in this case the Constitution in which the sovereign country of Texas voluntarily did when it agreed to enter the Union under the terms of the Constitution, both parties have the obligation to honor the terms of the contract.
It does not condemn a state like Texas to endure an abrogation of that contract. Texas freely joined the Union and can freely leave the Union.
There really is nothing that the US can do about it should the citizens of Texas decided to leave.
So go ahead and continue spouting off all the ridiculous reasons you feel otherwise. Perhaps that makes you feel good about your self.
-
There may not be a 'hard' succession, but, there is the possibility of a 'soft' seccession - a weak, ineffectual Federal Government that necessitates that states exercise more independence, self-reliance, and regionalism for state and local governments to function. We saw this with Covid and the Northeast states.
-
There may not be a 'hard' succession, but, there is the possibility of a 'soft' seccession - a weak, ineffectual Federal Government that necessitates that states exercise more independence, self-reliance, and regionalism for state and local governments to function. We saw this with Covid and the Northeast states.
Not a bad idea.
The power of the federal government makes it difficult as it can step in and unconstitutionally stop state efforts to assert its sovereignty, as has been done time and time again.
That strategy would be best deployed by a union of concerned states rather than in isolation.
-
There may not be a 'hard' succession, but, there is the possibility of a 'soft' seccession - a weak, ineffectual Federal Government that necessitates that states exercise more independence, self-reliance, and regionalism for state and local governments to function. We saw this with Covid and the Northeast states.
@DefiantMassRINO
True. Let's hope that is what happens,anyhow.
-
The Constitution forbids state secession. Individuals have the freedom to secede. But they can't take their land with them. When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.
Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.
The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them. Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.
Where in the Constitution does it forbid states from secession?
The 10th amendment states ; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I would also call your attention to the Declaration of Independence which I feel gives a backdrop for secession. We are a "free" people ... "WE the PEOPLE" are the government. There was a need to break away from Britain and consequently one of the greatest nation's on earth was formed.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
-
Libertybele has it right in reply 35 above. She wins the thread.
And as I've said before, it's time for a "New Continental Congress" of the traditional-freedom states, meeting with no particular goal in mind other than to discuss what's happening to DC and the country, and perhaps come to ideas as to what's to be done about it.
-
Libertybele has it right in reply 35 above. She wins the thread.
And as I've said before, it's time for a "New Continental Congress" of the traditional-freedom states, meeting with no particular goal in mind other than to discuss what's happening to DC and the country, and perhaps come to ideas as to what's to be done about it.
@Fishrrman @libertybele
Yup! Can't argue with that one!
Not that I am the argumentative type,mind you.
-
The whole thrust of the last 160 years of federal history is the strengthening of the federal government at the expense of state and individual liberties.
There is no chance, none whatsoever, of there ever being anything like this so-called "soft" secession.
There's also no chance of any other form of secession working, either, but what the hell, cultists have to cult, don't they?
Since there are people who want to dig a hole and pull it in after them, no matter how badly they are needed to fight the Rodents, there is going to be that useless segment of the population that is going to leave the good fight to the good people. Freeloaders exist where they're least expected, don't they?
-
For one thing, I do not refute the Constitution. I uphold it.
And a secession is NOT a rebellion, no matter how many times you say it is.
Oh, for Pete's sake. What is wrong with these people, anyway? Words mean things. They don't mean things people who are using them incorrectly do not like because those meanings torpedo their arguments.
Rebellion:
1. An act or state of armed, open resistance to authority, government, etc.
2. a defiance of or opposition to any control.
3. a rebelling
syn: insurrection, sedition, revolt, mutiny, resistance, contumacy, anarchy, revolution.
Secession:
a going apart, separation.
1. an act of seceding; formal withdrawal or separation,
2. the withdrawal of a State from the Federal Union,
3. the act of withdrawing from fellowship and communion.
Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged 1977. Damn thing weight 10 pounds, has more than 3000 pages, and cost me $1.75. Thanks for the workout. I always like the opportunity to dig into the thing. Makes my investment worth while.
Raise your hands, people.
Who thinks the fantasy secession that isn't going to happen anyway is going to peaceful and full of brotherly love and Christian fellowship?
Right.
So the secession would be VIOLENT.
Which automatically makes it a "rebellion".
Or don't you people study American history?
-
Where in the Constitution does it forbid states from secession?
The 10th amendment states ; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I would also call your attention to the Declaration of Independence which I feel gives a backdrop for secession. We are a "free" people ... "WE the PEOPLE" are the government. There was a need to break away from Britain and consequently one of the greatest nation's on earth was formed.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
See post #6.
Since the Congress is explicitly directed to suppress rebellion, rebellion is not one of the rights reserved to the States under Amendments 9 or 10.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
The poetry of the Declaration of Independence is not in itself a law, and the people that signed the DoI mostly wrote and ratified the Constitution that made rebellion illegal for the states.
Like I've been saying, the People, as individuals, can secede, by leaving. They can take their cash with them, but not their land. Their land is covered by the laws of their state and the state is covered by federal law.
Again, I'll repeat.
The act of secession withdraws from the people of a state the protections promised to those citizens under the Constitution, and there is no provision in the Constitution granting any state the authority to abrogate the rights of the citizens without a criminal trial for each citizen so proscribed.
-
So the secession would be VIOLENT.
@Sled Dog
Has there ever been one that wasn't?
That IS,in fact,the reason why rebellion should never be suggested casually. It is a VERY serious thing with very serious consequences for a lot of people,which is why it is rare except for in the most extreme cases.
Even the Russians understood this when they overthrew Communism,which was no small thing. In fact,I seriously doubt there has ever been a nation THAT powerful with that many people under their thumbs,and ended with so few deaths and so little destruction.
Seems to me that if a formal police state like the USSR can find a way to change virtually EVERYTHING in their legal code without massive bloodshed and fighting in the streets,we should be able to do the same right here in the US.
-
The whole thrust of the last 160 years of federal history is the strengthening of the federal government at the expense of state and individual liberties.
There is no chance, none whatsoever, of there ever being anything like this so-called "soft" secession.
There's also no chance of any other form of secession working, either, but what the hell, cultists have to cult, don't they?
Since there are people who want to dig a hole and pull it in after them, no matter how badly they are needed to fight the Rodents, there is going to be that useless segment of the population that is going to leave the good fight to the good people. Freeloaders exist where they're least expected, don't they?
If people held those beliefs 250 years ago, we would have never held fast against Britain and created this great country we call America.
Those who choose freedom rather than servitude will continue to fight, regardless of those who meekly submit.
-
Oh, for Pete's sake. What is wrong with these people, anyway? Words mean things. They don't mean things people who are using them incorrectly do not like because those meanings torpedo their arguments.
Rebellion:
1. An act or state of armed, open resistance to authority, government, etc.
2. a defiance of or opposition to any control.
3. a rebelling
syn: insurrection, sedition, revolt, mutiny, resistance, contumacy, anarchy, revolution.
Secession:
a going apart, separation.
1. an act of seceding; formal withdrawal or separation,
2. the withdrawal of a State from the Federal Union,
3. the act of withdrawing from fellowship and communion.
Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged 1977. Damn thing weight 10 pounds, has more than 3000 pages, and cost me $1.75. Thanks for the workout. I always like the opportunity to dig into the thing. Makes my investment worth while.
Raise your hands, people.
Who thinks the fantasy secession that isn't going to happen anyway is going to peaceful and full of brotherly love and Christian fellowship?
Right.
So the secession would be VIOLENT.
Which automatically makes it a "rebellion".
Or don't you people study American history?
You should have studied American history more closely.
The War of Union Aggression began when the Union sent a military contingent to overtly threaten a southern state. Not a rebellion if one uses arms in self defense.
Rather than submit meekly, the Confederate strategists chose to strike first.
Freedom is never meek, and only fools would not take advantage to prevent being destroyed by bullies.
Yeah, you just like to pump yourself up with self accolades of undeserved smartness on your knowledge, but demonstrate a decided weakness in so doing. Bad $1.75 investment.
-
@Sled Dog
Has there ever been one that wasn't?
Right.
Which is why it's a rebellion.
And the Constitution forbids rebellion.
Duh.
-
You should have studied American history more closely.
The War of Union Aggression began when the Union sent a military contingent to overtly threaten a southern state. Not a rebellion if one uses arms in self defense.
Rather than submit meekly, the Confederate strategists chose to strike first.
Freedom is never meek, and only fools would not take advantage to prevent being destroyed by bullies.
Yeah, you just like to pump yourself up with self accolades of undeserved smartness on your knowledge, but demonstrate a decided weakness in so doing. Bad $1.75 investment.
Honest historians call that the US Civil War.
The Civil War started when the rebels fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal possession in Charleston Harbor. Even the island the fort was built on was constructed using federal dollars.
Why do you hate the Constitution? What did it ever do to you, sitting there in it's helium filled glass case?
Your twisting of history is as equally vile as what the Rodents do.
You should ask yourself why I can buy good history books and references at such low prices. This fact is an indication that reality is being devalued in the US at the present, and has been for a long time.
-
If people held those beliefs 250 years ago, we would have never held fast against Britain and created this great country we call America.
Those who choose freedom rather than servitude will continue to fight, regardless of those who meekly submit.
Why are you people so unhappy that an honest man is telling you your fantasies of secession are illegal on their face?
Why are you people so unhappy that someone is pointing out that secession aka "fights for independence" are not only always violent but usually quite unsuccessful? And even when the split or revolution succeeds on it's face, the people who forced the split almost always wind up with a worse tyranny than they started with. CF Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Cuba, China, South America, South Africa, Weimar Republic.
There's nothing to indicate that if a bunch of fools ripped the US apart and attempted to form a new nation that the final product would be better. History says most likely not.
How did things turn out for the Southern secesh? Most of them lost their property, some of them their lives. They had no sacred honor to lose.
Y'all need to put down those Kurt Schlichter fantasy novels and confront reality. The Rodents WANT you people to fake up a secession. That gives Duke Nuke'm a chance to play political hero again.
And you simply cannot count on today's military to refrain from shooting you. West Point has been graduating open commies.
-
Right.
Which is why it's a rebellion.
And the Constitution forbids rebellion.
Duh.
@Sled Dog
"DUH",yersef. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Constitution to forbid rebellion. "When there comes a time that in the hearts of men......"
-
@Sled Dog
"DUH",yersef. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Constitution to forbid rebellion. "When there comes a time that in the hearts of men......"
Which came first, the egg or the Constitution?
Answer: Not the Declaration of Independence.
Which is the law of the land?
Answer: Not the Declaration of Independence.
-
Honest hithestorians call that the US Civil War.
The Civil War started when the rebels fired upon Fort Sumter,
@Sled Dog
You couldn't be more ass-backwards if you tried. After SC declared themselves to no longer be a part of the United States (You DID get taught the part about SC being one of the "volunteer union states",right),the Yankee troops no longer had a right to be there,and they had refused to leave after being ordered to leave.
They were armed invaders refusing to leave,so they were fired upon.
-
@Sled Dog
You couldn't be more ass-backwards if you tried. After SC declared themselves to no longer be a part of the United States (You DID get taught the part about SC being one of the "volunteer union states",right),the Yankee troops no longer had a right to be there,and they had refused to leave after being ordered to leave.
They were armed invaders refusing to leave,so they were fired upon.
You resort to circular logic very often, or only when all your other efforts fall completely flat?
And what parts of "Secession is unconstitutional" and what part of "Fort Sumter was federal territory" have flown completely over your head again?
You do admit that Sumter was not part of South Carolina, don't you?
You do recognize that the Constitution forbids rebellion, don't you?
Do you have any problems with the fact that President George Washington led troops to confront the Whiskey Rebellion?
When a citizenry unilaterally and illegally decides to fire upon a federal military installation, that's "rebellion".
-
Why are you people so unhappy that an honest man is telling you your fantasies of secession are illegal on their face?
Why are you people so unhappy that someone is pointing out that secession aka "fights for independence" are not only always violent but usually quite unsuccessful? And even when the split or revolution succeeds on it's face, the people who forced the split almost always wind up with a worse tyranny than they started with. CF Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Cuba, China, South America, South Africa, Weimar Republic.
There's nothing to indicate that if a bunch of fools ripped the US apart and attempted to form a new nation that the final product would be better. History says most likely not.
How did things turn out for the Southern secesh? Most of them lost their property, some of them their lives. They had no sacred honor to lose.
Y'all need to put down those Kurt Schlichter fantasy novels and confront reality. The Rodents WANT you people to fake up a secession. That gives Duke Nuke'm a chance to play political hero again.
And you simply cannot count on today's military to refrain from shooting you. West Point has been graduating open commies.
You have obviously succumbed to bondage and appear compliant in its ramifications.
Enjoy the new experience of socialism here while others make the break to freedoms.
-
Honest historians call that the US Civil War.
The Civil War started when the rebels fired upon Fort Sumter, a federal possession in Charleston Harbor. Even the island the fort was built on was constructed using federal dollars.
Why do you hate the Constitution? What did it ever do to you, sitting there in it's helium filled glass case?
Your twisting of history is as equally vile as what the Rodents do.
You should ask yourself why I can buy good history books and references at such low prices. This fact is an indication that reality is being devalued in the US at the present, and has been for a long time.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the War between the States.
The South never wished to take over the rest of the country, which, since you so readily relish definitions, is the definition of a Civil War.
This was caused 100% by aggression by the federal government which is exactly what is happening now.
-
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the War between the States.
The South never wished to take over the rest of the country, which, since you so readily relish definitions, is the definition of a Civil War.
This was caused 100% by aggression by the federal government which is exactly what is happening now.
No, of course I don't.
That's why I employ the historically correct description of the Civil War, correctly describe the situation at Fort Sumter, and recognize correctly that the Constitution doesn't not permit rebellion.
You might want to include in your analysis that the rebels, before firing on Sumter, fired in a US flagged vessel entering the harbor to provide humanitarian supplies to the Fort. That shot was actually the first shots in the war the rebels started.
And, actually, one of the demands the Rodents were making at the time was the full expansion of the slavery institution throughout all territories and new states. So, yeah, they wanted to take over the whole country.
-
You resort to circular logic very often, or only when all your other efforts fall completely flat?
@Sled Dog
Are you a professional fool,or do you just play one on the internet?
And what parts of "Secession is unconstitutional" and what part of "Fort Sumter was federal territory" have flown completely over your head again?
ALL of it,because it is BullBiden.
You do admit that Sumter was not part of South Carolina, don't you?
In what alternate universe? Last time I was in the area,it was still there.
You do recognize that the Constitution forbids rebellion, don't you?
Going to ignore the Declaration of Independence again,are you? Do you even know what it is?
Do you have any problems with the fact that President George Washington led troops to confront the Whiskey Rebellion?
Yes. It just proves that nobody is perfect,and politicians are always trying to get their hand in your pockets.
When a citizenry unilaterally and illegally decides to fire upon a federal military installation, that's "rebellion".
Key word highlighted. Ponder it for a few decades.
-
Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."
Just askin', but where is that part located...?
-
Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."
Just askin', but where is that part located...?
is this one of those powder things
-
Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."
Just askin', but where is that part located...?
From the bowels of one person here who chooses to fight against freedoms rather than against tyrants.
-
Sled dog wrote:
"And the Constitution forbids rebellion."
Just askin', but where is that part located...?
Read the thread.
-
From the bowels of one person here who chooses to fight against freedoms rather than against tyrants.
No.
From the bowls of the earth comes the food of patriots, an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect it from all enemies DOMESTIC and foreign.
Secesh are just as much enemies of the Constitution as the Rodents.
You have noticed that not one of you is actually citing that imaginary portion of the Constitution that permits this secession thing you people claim exists.
And yeah, someone already cited the Tenth Amendment, of course, and the Constitution, of course, explicitly requires the Congress to suppress rebellion, so the Tenth Amendment doesn't recognize secession as one of the rights not explicitly enumerated, it is, actually, a forbidden act, PER THE CONSTITUTION.
What is wrong with you people? Read the Constitution and start looking at the thing as an organic whole.
-
@Sled Dog
Are you a professional fool,or do you just play one on the internet?
ALL of it,because it is BullBiden.
In what alternate universe? Last time I was in the area,it was still there.
Going to ignore the Declaration of Independence again,are you? Do you even know what it is?
Yes. It just proves that nobody is perfect,and politicians are always trying to get their hand in your pockets.
When a citizenry unilaterally and illegally decides to fire upon a federal military installation, that's "rebellion".
Key word highlighted. Ponder it for a few decades.
Yes.
Even in 1860 it was illegal for citizens to fire cannons into a federal military facility.
They're not even allowed to fire cannons at ships entering US harbors, and that's regardless of whether the ships are flying the US flag or not, or if the ship was bringing supplies to a US military fort in the harbor that the criminals firing the cannon are trying to starve into submission.
Amazing, that word "illegal". It's not just for border crosses with Kung Flu.
-
You believe that repeating a question that's already been refuted refutes the refutation?
Interesting.
Reading the Constitution is fine, but it is folly to forget the text which contains the seminal reasons for the Rebellion in the first place, without which there would have been no need to establish a form of government.
I speak, of course. of The Declaration of Independence, written by many of the same folks who crafted the Constitution, and laying the groundwork thereof.
Lest this concept be lost in those few intervening years, be reminded:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-
Reading the Constitution is fine, but it is folly to forget the text which contains the seminal reasons for the Rebellion in the first place, without which there would have been no need to establish a form of government.
I speak, of course. of The Declaration of Independence, written by many of the same folks who crafted the Constitution, and laying the groundwork thereof.
Lest this concept be lost in those few intervening years, be reminded:
Okay, for people who don't understand, i'll repeat:
The Constitution is the LAW of the LAND.
The Declaration is an excuse note. It's an important document setting out our reasons for REBELLING against ENGLAND.
That does not invalidate the lines against rebellion written into the Constitution by the same people who fought the Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence.
Rebellion is unconstitutional.
-
Okay, for people who don't understand, i'll repeat:
The Constitution is the LAW of the LAND.
The Declaration is an excuse note. It's an important document setting out our reasons for REBELLING against ENGLAND.
That does not invalidate the lines against rebellion written into the Constitution by the same people who fought the Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence.
Rebellion is unconstitutional.
I would argue that the reasons given, the logic behind the Declaration remains valid. That RIGHT continues to exist, regardless of an agreement made centuries ago, which has been frequently violated. There is no way that those Sovereign and Several States would have formed a compact had they not believed it could be dissolved.
-
Reading the Constitution is fine, but it is folly to forget the text which contains the seminal reasons for the Rebellion in the first place, without which there would have been no need to establish a form of government.
I speak, of course. of The Declaration of Independence, written by many of the same folks who crafted the Constitution, and laying the groundwork thereof.
Lest this concept be lost in those few intervening years, be reminded:
And lest ANYONE forget, the DoI precedes the Constitution, and by its precedence, is the document of ultimate authority.
-
The Declaration is an excuse note. It's an important document setting out our reasons for REBELLING against ENGLAND.
NO. It declares in plain language why ANY government should and can be dissolved, including THIS ONE.
-
NO. It declares in plain language why ANY government should and can be dissolved, including THIS ONE.
Fine.
The Declaration of Independence was a literary justification for a war waged in violation of the laws of the land.
Secession is a violation of the laws of this land. It's "unconstitutional". Secessionists are people seeking to violate the Constitution for their own gain and their own pleasure.
People who support secession should at least demonstrate the tiniest bit of maturity it would take to admit this truth, and to admit that what they have to do is gear up for war.
The pitiful children pushing the idiotic secessionist ideas today want to pretend they are supporting the Constitution, just as the disgusting Rodents of 1860 pretended they were defending the Constitution then. They were not then, and secessionists today are not defending the Constitution now.
The secesh of 1860 talked of war.
The childish secesh of 2021 talk of running away and hiding, and avoid all mention of the realities of the consequences of starting what they want to start.
Man up, people. If you want what you want, say so. Stop pretending it's Constitutional, because it is not. Stop pretending it will be easy, because it will be bloody. Stop pretending you will succeed, for you almost certainly will not. The secessionist movement of today isn't blessed with the kind of geniuses that made a successful nation out of the calamity of war in 1887.
-
Fine.
The Declaration of Independence was a literary justification for a war waged in violation of the laws of the land.
Secession is a violation of the laws of this land. It's "unconstitutional". Secessionists are people seeking to violate the Constitution for their own gain and their own pleasure.
No, it simply relies upon the document that precedes all documents - and IS the ultimate law of this land. The very declaration that gave us liberty in the first place. You should read it. You will find your flaw.
And as I said before - There is not a contract anywhere on this earth that cannot be quit for nonperformance. And the Constitution is a contract.
-
Fine.
The Declaration of Independence was a literary justification for a war waged in violation of the laws of the land.
Secession is a violation of the laws of this land. It's "unconstitutional". Secessionists are people seeking to violate the Constitution for their own gain and their own pleasure.
People who support secession should at least demonstrate the tiniest bit of maturity it would take to admit this truth, and to admit that what they have to do is gear up for war.
The pitiful children pushing the idiotic secessionist ideas today want to pretend they are supporting the Constitution, just as the disgusting Rodents of 1860 pretended they were defending the Constitution then. They were not then, and secessionists today are not defending the Constitution now.
The secesh of 1860 talked of war.
The childish secesh of 2021 talk of running away and hiding, and avoid all mention of the realities of the consequences of starting what they want to start.
Man up, people. If you want what you want, say so. Stop pretending it's Constitutional, because it is not. Stop pretending it will be easy, because it will be bloody. Stop pretending you will succeed, for you almost certainly will not. The secessionist movement of today isn't blessed with the kind of geniuses that made a successful nation out of the calamity of war in 1887.
If you think the conquest of the Southern States by the North reunified the Republic, think again. The fault lines run deep, and after a century of being treated like sh*t, the South still hasn't forgotten, especially the hypocrisy of those who violated the Constitution in order to "save it".
Now try to tell me that the Government in Washington DC is anything representative of the 80+million who voted for someone other than the puppet in the White House. I'm all ears.
If it comes to a war, it will be bloody. Secession was an attempt to split without the destructive bloodshed but the Union (Yankees) insisted on "reunifying" the States by force. They invaded the South, looted and burned their way along, and the claimed "moral high ground" of freeing slaves (which didn't come up until the war had been going for two years) was cause for riots among the conscripts in New York who would not go to war for that 'cause'.
While you might maintain that any attempt to secede would be doomed to failure, well so was the upstart colonies taking on the might of the British Empire. We are the producers, not the coasts, and while that is a similar situation to that of the South in the last conflict, the understanding that the states in secession would not be left alone is there, the precedent is established, and the conflict would have to be carried out as other than as strictly defensive. That part is understood, too.
I would love for our Federal Government to have an epiphany and start abiding by the rest of the Constitution, but it is likely that their only sticking point would be their rejection of any attempt to dissolve that covenant. At some point, conflict is inevitable along the current path. The only question is what form that will take. Will it be open, or will it be a real insurrection, or will it be people cowering behind their doors at night hoping the 'knock' won't come?
In the words of a Patriot, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty..."
Now go ahead and run howling back to your masters because someone dared quote Patrick Henry.
-
There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.
When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.
-
There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.
When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.
@240B
How DARE you to suggest we shouldn't serve our Masters!
Weeze watch-in yew,boy!
-
There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.
When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.
Yes, the federal government was created by a collection of sovereign states to serve those states for specific purposes as outlined in the Constitution.
That same federal government now believes the states serve it instead, so the servant is now the master.
It is seen daily, as an example most recently by an Executive Order which demands states permit criminals, who have forfeited their rights as citizens, to be able to vote. Not even masked as a law passed by Congress, but a dictate from Executive who does not believe states are sovereign with the power to decide themselves.
A clear violation of the Constitution between states.
But some here believe we should reject freedoms and bear the yoke of slavery instead.
-
Yes, the federal government was created by a collection of sovereign states to serve those states for specific purposes as outlined in the Constitution.
That same federal government now believes the states serve it instead, so the servant is now the master.
It is seen daily, as an example most recently by an Executive Order which demands states permit criminals, who have forfeited their rights as citizens, to be able to vote. Not even masked as a law passed by Congress, but a dictate from Executive who does not believe states are sovereign with the power to decide themselves.
A clear violation of the Constitution between states.
But some here believe we should reject freedoms and bear the yoke of slavery instead.
@IsailedawayfromFR
The majority of any population group are natural-born followers. They are just not happy making their own decisions and want someone to tell them what to do. The ideal political solution for them would be to revert to being serfs working for a Lord like in Medieval Times.
I ain't no shrink and don't even play one on teebee,but *I* suspect the reason for this is they want something to bitch about and blame on someone else,and if they made their own decisions,the only one they would have to blame is themselves. MUCH betta to put someone else in charge and then bitch about every single thing they do so you can feel better about yourself.
Another word for these people is "Dim-o-crats".
-
I'll throw in my two cents here, and we might be splitting hairs, but there's a difference between the concept of secession and rebellion. Secession involves particular states attempting to leave the Union. Rebellion is citizens, regardless of state, rebelling against what they perceive to be unjust government actions. (btw, Lincoln never considered the Confederacy to be a separate country. He considered "secession" to be illegal and called the conflict "the great rebellion.")
I fully support the right of citizens to rebel against an unjust government.
But the Southerners who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery ahead of what they thought would be a national effort to ban slavery. They were correct in that thought. Slavery eventually would have disappeared in the United States. Secession was a last gasp effort of the slave states to hold on to "the peculiar institution" as some people phrased it.
They failed, and the Confederacy was crushed after four years of bloodshed.
But if all states have the equal right to leave the Union i.e. secede, then any state can do so.
That means some state, not necessarily one of the states in the Confederacy, could leave any time they felt like it.
Let's assume some non-Southern state decides it wants to leave. Let's say Wyoming decides they've had enough, and they're leaving.
And let's say the fed. gov. does nothing to stop Wyoming from declaring itself a separate country free of the Union. So Wyoming sets itself up as an independent country with their own system of who runs things inside Wyoming. I assume they'd have their own currency, laws, etc.
How long does Wyoming believe it can survive by itself without access to shipping, trucking, rail, and air lanes? Not very long.
The U.S. gov. can simply decide to deny outside access to Wyoming, and they're royally screwed. There goes secession.
And that's one of the big problems with secession even if it's declared by the S.C. to be legal. Which the S.C. will never do. Because there's nothing in the constitution that provides for unilateral secession. It does not mention secession at all.
And please don't bring up the 10th amendment which clearly does not provide for secession. It merely states that laws that are not distinctly the province of the fed. gov. are reserved for the states. AS PART OF THE UNION!!!
The constitution does ban a number of things that preclude secession including barring states from entering into separate contracts/alliances which is what the Confederacy did.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any secession attempted anyway. Many of the states of the Confederacy are split as far Dems and Republicans. The original fighting would be citizens of one state fighting citizens of their own state. And the fed. gov. would speedily step in crushing the efforts of the would be secessionists.
So let's stop the silly talk about secession and concentrate on trying to legally oppose and depose people currently wrecking the country.
-
I'll throw in my two cents here, and we might be splitting hairs, but there's a difference between the concept of secession and rebellion. Secession involves particular states attempting to leave the Union. Rebellion is citizens, regardless of state, rebelling against what they perceive to be unjust government actions. (btw, Lincoln never considered the Confederacy to be a separate country. He considered "secession" to be illegal and called the conflict "the great rebellion.")
I fully support the right of citizens to rebel against an unjust government.
But the Southerners who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery ahead of what they thought would be a national effort to ban slavery. They were correct in that thought. Slavery eventually would have disappeared in the United States. Secession was a last gasp effort of the slave states to hold on to "the peculiar institution" as some people phrased it.
They failed, and the Confederacy was crushed after four years of bloodshed.
But if all states have the equal right to leave the Union i.e. secede, then any state can do so.
That means some state, not necessarily one of the states in the Confederacy, could leave any time they felt like it.
Let's assume some non-Southern state decides it wants to leave. Let's say Wyoming decides they've had enough, and they're leaving.
And let's say the fed. gov. does nothing to stop Wyoming from declaring itself a separate country free of the Union. So Wyoming sets itself up as an independent country with their own system of who runs things inside Wyoming. I assume they'd have their own currency, laws, etc.
How long does Wyoming believe it can survive by itself without access to shipping, trucking, rail, and air lanes? Not very long.
The U.S. gov. can simply decide to deny outside access to Wyoming, and they're royally screwed. There goes secession.
And that's one of the big problems with secession even if it's declared by the S.C. to be legal. Which the S.C. will never do. Because there's nothing in the constitution that provides for unilateral secession. It does not mention secession at all.
And please don't bring up the 10th amendment which clearly does not provide for secession. It merely states that laws that are not distinctly the province of the fed. gov. are reserved for the states. AS PART OF THE UNION!!!
The constitution does ban a number of things that preclude secession including barring states from entering into separate contracts/alliances which is what the Confederacy did.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any secession attempted anyway. Many of the states of the Confederacy are split as far Dems and Republicans. The original fighting would be citizens of one state fighting citizens of their own state. And the fed. gov. would speedily step in crushing the efforts of the would be secessionists.
So let's stop the silly talk about secession and concentrate on trying to legally oppose and depose people currently wrecking the country.
By golly, you make a good point. How long would the rest survive without the Red states? Where most energy is produced, most grain is grown, even ethanol? That's my two cents.
You say the secession was over slavery, but that was the last straw in a long string of economic burdens the North intended to impose on the South. The pan was well primed long before that spark, and slavery was doomed as an institution anyway. Manumission was on the increase, simply because it was more economical to rent European immigrants for labor than to own slaves which required constant upkeep and housing and often an initial investment as well. It is the same reason the automobile replaced the horse in general use, because the automobile need not be fed when it was not in use, and required less land to keep.
-
I'll throw in my two cents here, and we might be splitting hairs, but there's a difference between the concept of secession and rebellion. Secession involves particular states attempting to leave the Union. Rebellion is citizens, regardless of state, rebelling against what they perceive to be unjust government actions. (btw, Lincoln never considered the Confederacy to be a separate country. He considered "secession" to be illegal and called the conflict "the great rebellion.")
I fully support the right of citizens to rebel against an unjust government.
But the Southerners who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery ahead of what they thought would be a national effort to ban slavery. They were correct in that thought. Slavery eventually would have disappeared in the United States. Secession was a last gasp effort of the slave states to hold on to "the peculiar institution" as some people phrased it.
They failed, and the Confederacy was crushed after four years of bloodshed.
But if all states have the equal right to leave the Union i.e. secede, then any state can do so.
That means some state, not necessarily one of the states in the Confederacy, could leave any time they felt like it.
Let's assume some non-Southern state decides it wants to leave. Let's say Wyoming decides they've had enough, and they're leaving.
And let's say the fed. gov. does nothing to stop Wyoming from declaring itself a separate country free of the Union. So Wyoming sets itself up as an independent country with their own system of who runs things inside Wyoming. I assume they'd have their own currency, laws, etc.
How long does Wyoming believe it can survive by itself without access to shipping, trucking, rail, and air lanes? Not very long.
The U.S. gov. can simply decide to deny outside access to Wyoming, and they're royally screwed. There goes secession.
And that's one of the big problems with secession even if it's declared by the S.C. to be legal. Which the S.C. will never do. Because there's nothing in the constitution that provides for unilateral secession. It does not mention secession at all.
And please don't bring up the 10th amendment which clearly does not provide for secession. It merely states that laws that are not distinctly the province of the fed. gov. are reserved for the states. AS PART OF THE UNION!!!
The constitution does ban a number of things that preclude secession including barring states from entering into separate contracts/alliances which is what the Confederacy did.
I sincerely doubt that there will be any secession attempted anyway. Many of the states of the Confederacy are split as far Dems and Republicans. The original fighting would be citizens of one state fighting citizens of their own state. And the fed. gov. would speedily step in crushing the efforts of the would be secessionists.
So let's stop the silly talk about secession and concentrate on trying to legally oppose and depose people currently wrecking the country.
SURE. Take up WY... And don't suppose her sisters won't go with her... That'd be ID, MT, likely NoDak, probably SoDak, and likely UT and eastern WA and OR...
-
There is nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about a State deciding to leave a wholly corrupted and frankly 'stupid' government.
States have every right to look after their own people first. The Federal Government is there to "serve" us.
The government was set up not to be 'dictators' and rulers to micromanage every aspect of civilian life.
They work for us at our convenience regardless of what the fascist Socialists say.
When they cease to be productive or beneficial, then they are automatically forfeit.
Nice argument.
Where in the Constitution is this "test for stupidity" you mention?
Where in the Constitution is the state allowed to remove the Constitution from the lives of the state's residents?
The Constitution grants several means for the people to resolve the Stupidity Issue. This includes elections, amending the Constitution either by Congressional Action or by an Article V Convention of States, and, finally, the Second Amendment comes into play. But if the final card is played, the Constitutional prohibition against rebellion is called and then things get really ugly, really fast.
And, besides, as I keep pointing out, secession WILL NOT WORK.
-
SURE. Take up WY... And don't suppose her sisters won't go with her... That'd be ID, MT, likely NoDak, probably SoDak, and likely UT and eastern WA and OR...
Anyone think those states would be allowed to leave peacefully?
Hands?
No?
Anyone know why the Southern Rebels failed in the Civil War?
Because...
...they had a smaller population,
...they had a limited industrial base,
...they have a mono-crop agrarian economy
...they had no navy.
...they failed to secure foreign recognition, even by those nations suffering the US embargo of the South's cotton.
What would happen when the states most idiotically vocal about secession actually tried to secede?
Outside of Texas, those states are...agrarian, thinly populated, land-locked, and won't secure foreign recognition for their independence bid. Canada is Woke Curling Paradise and won't support any rump nation attempting to form as an escape from Obama's Marxist Paradise. And Texas wouldn't stand long, either. Pretend-macho nonsense aside, the urban centers of Texas would burn to the ground if the state attempted to sever ties to Washington's welfare tribute.
And that's the one thing the Southern Confederacy didn't really suffer from. Today's secesh states all have urban centers heavily infested with Rodents addicted to welfare money and white-guilt.
They'll secede and carry the cancer with them.
-
Anyone think those states would be allowed to leave peacefully?
Hands?
No?
Comes a time to draw a hard line. And that time is coming on. If it is a matter of fighting for liberty or having it taken, the Rockies will not bow. And you sure as hell won't dig us out.
And the Confederacy this time around, if it must go that far, will be more than the South, I guarantee.
-
Comes a time to draw a hard line. And that time is coming on. If it is a matter of fighting for liberty or having it taken, the Rockies will not bow. And you sure as hell won't dig us out.
And the Confederacy this time around, if it must go that far, will be more than the South, I guarantee.
But you people can't even admit that it's unconstitutional. Why would others dig you out if you can't even be honest about what it is you're doing?
And the wife wants to retire to Wyoming. I hope she does. That's far far away from where I'm going to be. And then if Wyoming seceded, I'd be freed from alimony payments...
-
But you people can't even admit that it's unconstitutional. Why would others dig you out if you can't even be honest about what it is you're doing?
And the wife wants to retire to Wyoming. I hope she does. That's far far away from where I'm going to be. And then if Wyoming seceded, I'd be freed from alimony payments...
You are all hung up on Constitutional, yet the very government you seem to defend has routinely violated that compact for decades. If the Federal Government will not abide by that compact, then for all purposes they have abdicated any Right to gripe about nullification of their unconstitutional acts and even secession.
There is no way that those sovereign and Several States would have agreed to any compact that was an inextricable quagmire.
-
But you people can't even admit that it's unconstitutional. Why would others dig you out if you can't even be honest about what it is you're doing?
I said no such thing. I said the liberty ordained and established in the Declaration of Independence supersedes the Constitution in authority - And that the Constitution, as a contract, is null and void if not performed, just like ANY contract.
And not that I really give a sh*t. When it comes to bowing to tyrants, I need no other reason than the bare fact I will not bow. And neither will my brethren. So come and take it.
And the wife wants to retire to Wyoming. I hope she does. That's far far away from where I'm going to be. And then if Wyoming seceded, I'd be freed from alimony payments...
Just as well... Doesn't sound like you'd be welcome. happy77
-
Anyone think those states would be allowed to leave peacefully?
Hands?
No?
Anyone know why the Southern Rebels failed in the Civil War?
Because...
...they had a smaller population,
...they had a limited industrial base,
...they have a mono-crop agrarian economy
...they had no navy.
...they failed to secure foreign recognition, even by those nations suffering the US embargo of the South's cotton.
What would happen when the states most idiotically vocal about secession actually tried to secede?
Outside of Texas, those states are...agrarian, thinly populated, land-locked, and won't secure foreign recognition for their independence bid. Canada is Woke Curling Paradise and won't support any rump nation attempting to form as an escape from Obama's Marxist Paradise. And Texas wouldn't stand long, either. Pretend-macho nonsense aside, the urban centers of Texas would burn to the ground if the state attempted to sever ties to Washington's welfare tribute.
And that's the one thing the Southern Confederacy didn't really suffer from. Today's secesh states all have urban centers heavily infested with Rodents addicted to welfare money and white-guilt.
They'll secede and carry the cancer with them.
Apparently, you have never taken a look at any of those county by county election maps that have been coming out for the last several years. @Sled Dog
Study this for a while and think about what you see.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fus-east-1.tchyn.io%2Fsnopes-production%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2F3141-counties-trump-won.jpg%3Fresize%3D841%2C452&f=1&nofb=1)
-
But the Southerners
who "seceded" in 1861 weren't seceding because they were being oppressed. They wished to preserve slavery....
@goatprairie
.
I get so tired of hearing that "to preserve slavery" crap I could puke on your head for bringing it up again.
That was the EXCUSE the Yankees used to give cover to "grand theft,state". After the war ended the carpetbaggers came in,and with their buddies from the north that were appointed to jobs like sheriff,judge,chief justice,county manager,state senator,etc,etc,etc,robbed the south blind. They had cute little tricks like the sheriff declaring a far up for sale due to delinquent taxes on the very morning of the sale,and would tack up the notice as his pals,the only bidders there,watched.
Keep in mind the taxes were delinquent because the farm owners had been away fighting the war,and most hadn't even gotten back home yet.
Mr Lincoln and accomplices may have talked a humanitarian goal,but it was all about control and profit by legalized theft.
The very island I live on now is one example. Several hundred acres,and MAYBE 10-15 families living here when the war started. None of those families were living here after the war because the sheriff put it up for sale at a tax auction,and it sold to Yankee industrialists who wanted a hunting club. The men came back from the war to discover they no longer had homes,and their families were living with relatives. Those same industralists and their offsprung retained owership of the island until the 60's or 70's,when duck hunting became uncouth and unfashionable amongst the Wall Street set,and it was sold off again.
Ironically enough,there is once again a hunting club here for rich southeasters. And me. My house is the only house here,and I am living on the same lot my mother and her sister lived on after the flu of 1918 and they were sent to live with a crippled up Civil War vet because he needed somebody to cook and take care of him,and they needed somewhere to live. The original house was still standing when I bought the land,but it was rotten to the core. It was so old it was built back when the kitchen was a separate building with a walkway between it and the house. I could grab a door jamb inside the house in my hand and crumble it.
These insider trading land deals were why so many Confederate soldiers left the south and moved west to start over. There was nothing here for most of them,and the courts were only concerned with keeping them poor and helpless.
And let's not even get into how in many places a former slave could murder his former owner or their family,and just be told to move away avoid revenge.
Want to know why the KKK gained so much power and turned racist? Now you know. The law only applied TO the southerners,and never FOR them. There were cases of blacks raping and murdering white women and the courts refusing to have them arrested or put on trial. Granted,it didn't happen often,but it DID happen.
Hell,it's still happening today,but these days it's happening more in Mn,LA, and Portland than the south.
-
Apparently, you have never taken a look at any of those county by county election maps that have been coming out for the last several years. @Sled Dog
Study this for a while and think about what you see.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fus-east-1.tchyn.io%2Fsnopes-production%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2F3141-counties-trump-won.jpg%3Fresize%3D841%2C452&f=1&nofb=1)
Sure I have.
Now, because you people have lost the state secession argument, some are willing to bring up secession-by-county.
That's nice.
It's still the urban areas where the industries are.
It's still the urban areas where the cannon-fodder troops are.
It's still the urban areas where the money is.
It's still the urban areas which will garner the support of the international community, thereby deny said support to the "counties".
Secession is still a losing argument, and those advocating that silliness still need to grow up and find a better argument.
-
@goatprairie
.
I get so tired of hearing that "to preserve slavery" crap I could puke on your head for bringing it up again.
Yeah, because the goal of the Southern Democrats who pushed the secession gambit ...were in fact doing so solely to preserve their slavery culture.
You may be sick of it, but your vomit won't change historical reality.
The southern leaders pushed the nation into civil war to keep their property. And the property they were fighting to keep had arms and legs and children.
The troops bought the farce that it was about "states' rights", but the "right" in contention was the right of the southern gentry to own and sell people.
That was the EXCUSE the Yankees used to give cover to "grand theft,state". After the war ended the carpetbaggers...
Had nothing to do with the causes of the wars and the real reasons the Rodents of the time pushed for secession was to not only keep their slaves but to expand the Peculiar Institution into the western territories of the United States.
The Rodents brokered their own national convention because a "moderate" was going to be nominated if the southern hotheads let the show continue.
Since they started the Civil War, it's just a crying shame that they murdered the only person in Washington that would have been sympathetic to their plight, after. The murder of Lincoln by a Southern coward inflamed the North, fueled demands for retribution and silenced any voices for restraint that were left.
It may have been a wee bit harsh on the millions of people in the South that didn't pull the trigger, but life can be unfair, ya dig?
Then the South immediately started disenfranchising the new black voters and attempted to put them back on the plantations as indentured servants again. Screw the southerners and the damage they caused for centuries.
Keep in mind the taxes were delinquent because the farm owners had been away fighting the war,and most hadn't even gotten back home yet.
This still lacks relevancy to the lies the Rodents pushed about the war both before and after.
Want to know why the KKK gained so much power and turned racist? Now you know. The law only applied TO the southerners,and never FOR them. There were cases of blacks raping and murdering white women and the courts refusing to have them arrested or put on trial. Granted,it didn't happen often,but it DID happen.
"Turned" racist?
That's interesting. How many blacks were founding fathers of the Ku Klux Klan, I wonder?
-
"Turned" racist?
That's interesting. How many blacks were founding fathers of the Ku Klux Klan, I wonder?
@Sled Dog
I didn't overlook your narrowing the field to "Founding fathers of the KKK".
There were black KKK members in the early days,just like there were black Confederate soldiers. As well as black slave owners. Did you know that the VERY first slave owner in the English-Speaking New World was a black man who came to America as an indentured servant?
BTW,the people we call American Indians (and Mexican Indians if you want to cause a riot because we all KNOW Mexicans are all pure Castilian Spanish stock,and anybody who says they have even a trace of Indian blood is a damn liar!" all held slaves long before "de ebil white mens" got here.
And that whites held whites as slaves,just like everybody else held some of their own people as slaves.
-
Just as well... Doesn't sound like you'd be welcome. happy77
Sure I would be.
I'm a real American. Conservative, Navy veteran, never been on welfare, never voted Rodent, don't support idiots or their ideas.
And no matter where I go, I am not weak enough to worry if people like me or not. That's something they have to worry about, really.
-
@Sled Dog
I didn't overlook your narrowing the field to "Founding fathers of the KKK".
Then don't.
The KKK was established to disenfranchise blacks and undermine the United States.
Why else do you think it's a Democrat stronghold?
BTW,the people we call American Indians (and Mexican Indians if you want to cause a riot because we all KNOW Mexicans are all pure Castilian Spanish stock,and anybody who says they have even a trace of Indian blood is a damn liar!" all held slaves long before "de ebil white mens" got here.
Oh, gee. We're all going to get the routine lecture about how slavery is the human condition again to justify the facts of slavery by the Democrats then and now.
Wonderful.
And this guy is telling it to a descendant of Irish kings.
ALL Irishmen are descended from Irish kings. It was a very small island, after all.
Back to American History: The Democrats started the Civil War to defend their ownership of slaves. End of class, no discussion needed. Students who claim otherwise on the final exam will receive an F. This is as central to the understanding the US Civil War as the facts of evolution by natural selection is to the study of medicine and biology.
-
@Sled Dog
BTW,the people we call American Indians (and Mexican Indians if you want to cause a riot because we all KNOW Mexicans are all pure Castilian Spanish stock,and anybody who says they have even a trace of Indian blood is a damn liar!" all held slaves long before "de ebil white mens" got here.
You are sure good at throwing crap around, even if it's Satire.
Just part of my "Hispanic" Wife's DNA Analysis:
Americas 64%
Amerindian – Central & South Mexico 56%
Amerindian – Andes & Caribbean 3%
Amerindian – North America 3%
Amerindian – North Mexico 1%
-
Sure I would be.
I'm a real American. Conservative, Navy veteran, never been on welfare, never voted Rodent, don't support idiots or their ideas.
And no matter where I go, I am not weak enough to worry if people like me or not. That's something they have to worry about, really.
Were you a Bubblehead? My son was. A F'n Nuke(MMN).
I was a Carrier Twidgit(ETR) in my day.
-
[Outro]
I am prepared now, seems everything's gonna be fine
For me, for me, for myself
For me, for me, for myself
For me, for me, for myself
I am prepared now, for myself
I am prepared now
And I am fine again[/b
Seether
-
You are sure good at throwing crap around, even if it's Satire.
Just part of my "Hispanic" Wife's DNA Analysis:
Americas 64%
Amerindian – Central & South Mexico 56%
Amerindian – Andes & Caribbean 3%
Amerindian – North America 3%
Amerindian – North Mexico 1%
Umm....just to set the record straight, the quote you are attributing to me was in fact posted by @sneakypete and I was merely responding to it. ( ah...I see it was nested in...gotta love software, don't we?)
I personally don't care what someone's genetic heritage is. Baldness runs in families, after all.
You have 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. You cannot have a 1% heritage of anything, the minimum is 1/46 = 2.17%.
Unless you're descended from Pocahontas, of course.
For the purposes of discussion, I married a wasian from Paris. I don't know what that makes my kids...tricontinental?
-
Were you a Bubblehead? My son was. A F'n Nuke(MMN).
I was a Carrier Twidgit(ETR) in my day.
We never used that term. That was something only skimmers would use. I was an MM(SS). They didn't have MMN's in the day.
-
Then don't.
The KKK was established to disenfranchise blacks and undermine the United States.
Why else do you think it's a Democrat stronghold?
I just don't have the patience to educate the clueless anymore. You still believe the crap you were taught in goobermint schools. Learn a little actual history,and then get back with me.
Until then,ESAD.
-
I just don't have the patience to educate the clueless anymore. You still believe the crap you were taught in goobermint schools. Learn a little actual history,and then get back with me.
Until then,ESAD.
Actually, my formal education spent less than two weeks on the Civil War, but I've spent years reading histories on the event and studying it on my own.
I also taught myself calculus and can tie my own shoes, too.
Oh, and I'm not Clueless. My daughter has the game on her closet shelf.
-
@Fishrrman We will know in 2024 if the current Republic is worth saving,or if we have to cut loose the dead weight.
@sneakypete
sneaky, my friend, I was born and grew to adulthood in Texas. Back in my day, every student in a Texas school, was taught this - Before Texas agreed to join the union, they insisted on the right to leave the union, and that was included in the documents. It was/is the only state to have that protection to leave if they want. They will not leave.
-
Umm....just to set the record straight, the quote you are attributing to me was in fact posted by @sneakypete and I was merely responding to it. ( ah...I see it was nested in...gotta love software, don't we?)
I personally don't care what someone's genetic heritage is. Baldness runs in families, after all.
You have 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. You cannot have a 1% heritage of anything, the minimum is 1/46 = 2.17%.
Unless you're descended from Pocahontas, of course.
For the purposes of discussion, I married a wasian from Paris. I don't know what that makes my kids...tricontinental?
I was quoting Pete not you.
And DNA Analysis is much much more than 23 Pairs of chromosomes. Its the analysis of SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms and STRs, short tandem repeats.
-
@sneakypete
sneaky, my friend, I was born and grew to adulthood in Texas. Back in my day, every student in a Texas school, was taught this - Before Texas agreed to join the union, they insisted on the right to leave the union, and that was included in the documents. It was/is the only state to have that protection to leave if they want. They will not leave.
@Victoria33
I do not believe that to be true. The ORIGINAL 13 Colonies agreed to join a VOLUNTARY union. I do not THINK any area that later became a state had that sort of agreement,except maybe Texas,but I could be wrong on that part.
What does joining a VOLUNTARY UNION mean to you or anyone else you know?
-
I was quoting Pete not you.
And DNA Analysis is much much more than 23 Pairs of chromosomes. Its the analysis of SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms and STRs, short tandem repeats.
@Elderberry
Speak English,dammit!
-
We never used that term. That was something only skimmers would use. I was an MM(SS). They didn't have MMN's in the day.
I think MMN's have been around for a long long time, but I now see that they tack on a SS or SW. So he would now be a MMN(SS). He served 2004 to 2010.
-
Yeah, because the goal of the Southern Democrats who pushed the secession gambit ...were in fact doing so solely to preserve their slavery culture.
You may be sick of it, but your vomit won't change historical reality.
I now believe you are clinically insane.
-
@sneakypete
sneaky, my friend, I was born and grew to adulthood in Texas. Back in my day, every student in a Texas school, was taught this - Before Texas agreed to join the union, they insisted on the right to leave the union, and that was included in the documents. It was/is the only state to have that protection to leave if they want. They will not leave.
That is a falsehood.
I grew up in Texas, had plenty of Texas history in school and my father had a Masters in Texas history.
There is no document which grants Texas special provisions to secede. All states have that right.
There are two special provisions however, which Texas possesses specifically given by Congress upon the state entering the Union that no other state was granted.
1. Texas was allowed to retain its state lands instead of being ceded to the US. This proved instrumental in retaining the wealth of the state.
2. Texas has the right to split into five states by its own volition and without approval by the US. This gives an additional 8 Senate seats in Congress. The representatives of Texas knew full well that it might need those votes to preserve its freedoms someday.
-
Sure I have.
Now, because you people have lost the state secession argument, some are willing to bring up secession-by-county.
That's nice.
It's still the urban areas where the industries are.
It's still the urban areas where the cannon-fodder troops are.
It's still the urban areas where the money is.
It's still the urban areas which will garner the support of the international community, thereby deny said support to the "counties".
Secession is still a losing argument, and those advocating that silliness still need to grow up and find a better argument.
Yep. How long will they run when the food, the fuel, the electricity are cut off, because all that comes from elsewhere.
-
Yep. How long will they run when the food, the fuel, the electricity are cut off, because all that comes from elsewhere.
pointing-up
-
That is a falsehood.
I grew up in Texas, had plenty of Texas history in school and my father had a Masters in Texas history.
There is no document which grants Texas special provisions to secede. All states have that right.
There are two special provisions however, which Texas possesses specifically given by Congress upon the state entering the Union that no other state was granted.
1. Texas was allowed to retain its state lands instead of being ceded to the US. This proved instrumental in retaining the wealth of the state.
2. Texas has the right to split into five states by its own volition and without approval by the US. This gives an additional 8 Senate seats in Congress. The representatives of Texas knew full well that it might need those votes to preserve its freedoms someday.
"All states have that right (to secede)."
So you're saying the 37 states that were not original colonies but created by the fed. gov. are somehow sovereign entities with the right to leave any time they feel like it?
Why would the fed. gov. create sovereign independent countries that could do that?
The answer: they wouldn't.
No state has any more rights than any other state under the fed. constitution. No state has the right to secede. It's called a union for a reason.
-
Yep. How long will they run when the food, the fuel, the electricity are cut off, because all that comes from elsewhere.
Many of these would be secessionist states are split as far as pro-secession and anti-secession. You'd have a civil war inside states before you'd have a national insurrection.
At any rate, attempts by pro-secession groups to seize power and declare themselves independent would be swiftly crushed by the fed. gov.
-
No state has any more rights than any other state under the fed. constitution. No state has the right to secede. It's called a union for a reason.
You are delusional. The Constitution provides for different states to be represented in the House on the basis of apportionment, therefore wielding voting rights superior/inferior to other states.
And you really do not know the history of Texas' entry into the Union. Go look it up.
-
It's called a union for a reason.
@goatprairie
Yes,and that reason is it was a voluntary marriage of equals,not a master/slave relationship.
-
Man up, people. If you want what you want, say so. Stop pretending it's Constitutional, because it is not. Stop pretending it will be easy, because it will be bloody. Stop pretending you will succeed, for you almost certainly will not. The secessionist movement of today isn't blessed with the kind of geniuses that made a successful nation out of the calamity of war in 1887.
@Sled Dog
@sneakypete
@Smokin Joe
@Bigun
@libertybele
@IsailedawayfromFR
I hate I came to this so late. There are good arguments made by all. But ultimately this thread needs to not die. There is an existential issue being discussed here and the drumbeat will only grow louder.
Here’s the thing:
Those in favor of secession are right: if the Constitutional government is operating extra-Constitutionally, why should they be bound by the same construct?
And another more important point:
Whether secession is explicitly or implicitly allowed or disallowed is irrelevant. Any states or people remaining after a secession will be faced with the choice of allowing those states to leave or fight to make them stay. In today’s climate, I’m not so sure which way that debate would go.
As has been alluded here, our rebellion against England was against the law of the time. If the states remaining after a secession decide that is unconstitutional, then it shall be so, and by default: unconstitutional and illegal. The seceding states no longer have a say in that matter.
Now, lets presume for the moment they deem it so.
It will not be easy. It will be horrifically bloody. There will be tumult to every facet of our way of life. Families will be split apart and untold numbers will die. The outcome is completely unknown as are the unintended consequences.
And it is wholly necessary.
I would infinitely prefer an amicable divorce. The decision to make it a murder/suicide is on those who might decide they would rather force, at the point of a gun, others to stay where they no longer wish to be.
-
There is a point where, no matter the price of the ticket, the show ain't worth it. So get up and leave. People throw around the texture and meaning of the Constitution. Too suit.
If states want out it is because their citizens want out. Dissolve a mass part of the Fed Gov and we wouldn't feel the need to leave.
Start with * and his Ho.
-
America has become in the last few weeks undeniably a proto-Cuba, and Schumer/Pelosi are stepping into the shoes of Castro.
By the end of this year or before, we all will be living in a dystopian militarized State, with Federal politicians acting as 'protected rulers' or 'overseers' rather than representatives. Elections are now meaningless. Rule-of-Law has become meaningless as it always does with any totalitarian Communist coup.
If you are not prepping by now, then you have to start now.
I see food and good shortages coming sooner than later.
With the Democrats throwing around bill after bill calling for hundreds of billions of dollars, one after the other, I see the American dollar crashing to unheard of lows. The Democrats are throwing around billions of billions of dollars like it is Monopoly money. This is obviously not sustainable.
The year 2022 will be unrecognizable to most Americans. We will all feel like we have moved to a different place in the world which does not recognize ANY traditional American culture.
Not gloom and doom, just simple reality. Anyone expecting a turnaround in 2022 is dreaming. By then the Democrats will have elections and voters so corrupted and locked up in their pockets, a Republican will never be elected to any office anywhere. Which has always been the goal and the dream of Democrats since the 60s. Now they have done it.
Complacent, obsequious, and cowardly Republican politicians, combined with a very focused and deliberate effort to 'dumb down' the American population has lead the Democrats to victory. And they deserve it. They had a 50 year plan and they executed it perfectly, with almost no opposition.
Again, this is not intended to be a gloom and doom post. All I am urging is to face reality and to prepare for it as much as you can. The next four years are going to be complete insanity. And EVERYONE, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, we are all heading for a world of shit. Liberals will get 'exactly' what they voted for.
Saving money will not help you. For decades Democrats have been pushing wealth confiscation over a certain amount and, of course, land and property confiscation which they 'feel' should rightfully belong to them. And they have proven already that the banks are in their pocket.
For year after year, for decades, the wacko Liberals in Hollywood have promised to 'leave the country' if this or that happens. Many of them will finally fulfill that promise over the next three years. None of them are immune to what is on the horizon. They are not immune to what their utter 'stupidity and hate' have brought down on all of us.
All the crazy-ass Liberals/Democrats are about to find out that wanting a Communist System is not at all the same as having a Communist System. Liberals are like irrational children rebelling against their parents. Once they win, now what? Who is going to cook dinner? Who is going to pay the bills now?
-
There is a point where, no matter the price of the ticket, the show ain't worth it. So get up and leave. People throw around the texture and meaning of the Constitution. Too suit.
If states want out it is because their citizens want out. Dissolve a mass part of the Fed Gov and we wouldn't feel the need to leave.
Start with * and his Ho.
The U. S. Constitution assigns 17 things for the federal government to do and if it had been confined to doing only those things there would not be a problem.
-
America has become in the last few weeks undeniably a proto-Cuba, and Schumer/Pelosi are stepping into the shoes of Castro.
By the end of this year or before, we all will be living in a dystopian militarized State, with Federal politicians acting as 'protected rulers' or 'overseers' rather than representatives. Elections are now meaningless. Rule-of-Law has become meaningless as it always does with any totalitarian Communist coup.
If you are not prepping by now, then you have to start now.
I see food and good shortages coming sooner than later.
With the Democrats throwing around bill after bill calling for hundreds of billions of dollars, one after the other, I see the American dollar crashing to unheard of lows. The Democrats are throwing around billions of billions of dollars like it is Monopoly money. This is obviously not sustainable.
The year 2022 will be unrecognizable to most Americans. We will all feel like we have moved to a different place in the world which does not recognize ANY traditional American culture.
[size=2]Not gloom and doom, just simple reality. Anyone expecting a turnaround in 2022 is dreaming. By then the Democrats will have elections and voters so corrupted and locked up in their pockets, a Republican will never be elected to any office anywhere. Which has always been the goal and the dream of Democrats since the 60s. Now they have done it.[/size]
Complacent, obsequious, and cowardly Republican politicians, combined with a very focused and deliberate effort to 'dumb down' the American population has lead the Democrats to victory. And they deserve it. They had a 50 year plan and they executed it perfectly, with almost no opposition.
Again, this is not intended to be a gloom and doom post. All I am urging is to face reality and to prepare for it as much as you can. The next four years are going to be complete insanity. And EVERYONE, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, we are all heading for a world of shit. Liberals will get 'exactly' what they voted for.
Saving money will not help you. For decades Democrats have been pushing wealth confiscation over a certain amount and, of course, land and property confiscation which they 'feel' should rightfully belong to them. And they have proven already that the banks are in their pocket.
For year after year, for decades, the wacko Liberals in Hollywood have promised to 'leave the country' if this or that happens. Many of them will finally fulfill that promise over the next three years. None of them are immune to what is on the horizon. They are not immune to what their utter 'stupidity and hate' have brought down on all of us.
All the crazy-ass Liberals/Democrats are about to find out that wanting a Communist System is not at all the same as having a Communist System. Liberals are like irrational children rebelling against their parents. Once they win, now what? Who is going to cook dinner? Who is going to pay the bills now?
Exactly. Not gloom and doom but REALITY!
-
So many Biden voters have already lost their jobs and are paying twice as much for gasoline and electricity.
As for the corporations who supported the coup, the Democrats are already pushing to unionized all workers in America.
Before long, all Democrats/Liberals/NeverTrumps and Biden voters in general, are all going to realize the exact opposite of what they thought they were voting for. That is a fact.
-
So many Biden voters have already lost their jobs and are paying twice as much for gasoline and electricity.
As for the corporations who supported the coup, the Democrats are already pushing to unionized all workers in America.
Before long, all Democrats/Liberals/NeverTrumps and Biden voters in general, are all going to realize the exact opposite of what they thought they were voting for. That is a fact.
It's only going to get worse. That is a fact.
-
So many Biden voters have already lost their jobs and are paying twice as much for gasoline and electricity.
As for the corporations who supported the coup, the Democrats are already pushing to unionized all workers in America.
Before long, all Democrats/Liberals/NeverTrumps and Biden voters in general, are all going to realize the exact opposite of what they thought they were voting for. That is a fact.
I see it coming. I seen it coming a long way off.
Let it come. Far better now than on my grandkids, when they may no longer have the means to fight.
And the next natural fall-back is to the bastion and bulwark of the sovereign states.
-
So many Biden voters have already lost their jobs and are paying twice as much for gasoline and electricity.
That is nothing compared to what will be coming because Biden and gang want to increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon on top of what we already pay, in addition to ceding oil price control back to OPEC so it will escalate once again. And electricity will be multiples more costly once the renewables mandates kick in hard.
All of this will cause the US to be less competitive to China so more US jobs will be lost.
It is pure insanity. Or AOC's fantasy being realized.
-
That is nothing compared to what will be coming because Biden and gang want to increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon on top of what we already pay, in addition to ceding oil price control back to OPEC so it will escalate once again. And electricity will be multiples more costly once the renewables mandates kick in hard.
All of this will cause the US to be less competitive to China so more US jobs will be lost.
It is pure insanity.
It seems intentional. If an enemy came up with a plan to "crash" the U.S. economy, they would do word for word, step by step, everything the Democrats are currently doing. But why? Why do the Democrats seem to want to destroy the economy and everything on their watch?
The poor Liberals voted Biden because they are idiots. They voted for the $15 minimum wage and the 'guaranteed income for all' mantra the Democrats were selling. Which if either of these actually happened they would be nullified almost immediately by an exponential spike in inflation. What idiotic Liberals cannot comprehend is that it does not matter how much money you 'make', it is all about what you can 'buy' with that money. It would be like throwing coal into the furnace of inflation.
The NeverTrumps are sitting back smoking cigars, gleeful that they managed to kill a God, - Trump. That is until they see their taxes skyrocket, their workers unionized, and their 'excess' wealth confiscated.
It will be entertaining to see how the Dems and their slave gimps in the media twist themselves into pretzels trying to pin all of the coming economic disaster on Trump.
-
I think MMN's have been around for a long long time, but I now see that they tack on a SS or SW. So he would now be a MMN(SS). He served 2004 to 2010.
Yeah. I was discharged in the mid-80's. MMN wasn't a thing, then.
I'm sure it's because all the conventional MMs were losing on the promotion ladders because the nuke MMs were going to sweep the ratings exams, just like the EMs and ETs were.
So it was a matter of fairness.
And on the other side of the coin, what the heck does a submarine nuke MM know about steam galley equipment, fans, ducting, hydraulic systems, and anchors? Those either didn't exist or were the property of the Auxiliary Division.
Was fun, kinda, except for the part about running into other submarines...stupid officers.
-
Anybody want to see real radical?
Check out the question and answer Biden gave.
He is putting US taxpayers on the hook for solving the global epidemic.
http://youtu.be/QtNHkJHfSRE
-
Yep. How long will they run when the food, the fuel, the electricity are cut off, because all that comes from elsewhere.
That IS the THING.
Why secede when the better solution is so obvious and so simple?
-
Yeah. I was discharged in the mid-80's. MMN wasn't a thing, then.
I'm sure it's because all the conventional MMs were losing on the promotion ladders because the nuke MMs were going to sweep the ratings exams, just like the EMs and ETs were.
So it was a matter of fairness.
And on the other side of the coin, what the heck does a submarine nuke MM know about steam galley equipment, fans, ducting, hydraulic systems, and anchors? Those either didn't exist or were the property of the Auxiliary Division.
Was fun, kinda, except for the part about running into other submarines...stupid officers.
Yeah, I don't remember my son talking about those systems. He did talk about losing too many tools working in the bilges. He did get training and licensing on refrigeration systems and worked quite a bit on them. It seems he spent most of his time working in the engine room.
When I was in, ETs were critical for a while. My chief had been a Master-at-Arms. He signed his name to a piece of paper and became an ET. He didn't know a damn thing about electronics.
-
Here’s the thing:
Those in favor of secession are right: if the Constitutional government is operating extra-Constitutionally, why should they be bound by the same construct?
Because they can't claim to both revere the Constitution and rape it.
And because their chosen method will not advance them to their desired goal.
There's a lot of power in the simple phrase "it won't work like you think".
And another more important point:
Whether secession is explicitly or implicitly allowed or disallowed is irrelevant. Any states or people remaining after a secession will be faced with the choice of allowing those states to leave or fight to make them stay. In today’s climate, I’m not so sure which way that debate would go.
That's because there will be no debate.
The states that do not want to secede are Rodent states and those people aren't allowed to form opinions and fuel debate.
So the reaction to any enforced secession will be war. Automatically and without thought, because Rodents cannot think, not even the leadership. Their brains are infected with slogans, even the Master Minds, and slogans short-cut thought and the brain goes straight to emotion. Rodents have cunning, not intelligence.
So secession means war in it's grossest form.
And...secession means surrendering the advantages a more asymmetric form of rebellion would provide them.
As has been alluded here, our rebellion against England was against the law of the time. If the states remaining after a secession decide that is unconstitutional, then it shall be so, and by default: unconstitutional and illegal. The seceding states no longer have a say in that matter.
Now, lets presume for the moment they deem it so.
It will not be easy. It will be horrifically bloody. There will be tumult to every facet of our way of life. Families will be split apart and untold numbers will die. The outcome is completely unknown as are the unintended consequences.
Oh, no.
The outcome is fairly certain. The secesh loses. They won't have international backing, they don't have the population, they don't have the industries. And while they would be hesitant to use whatever nuclear weapons they can grab, the Rodents would enjoy the heck out of using them on their hated enemies.
Secesh loses. The American Revolution was an almost unique circumstance. History will not repeat itself in that way again.
And it is wholly necessary.
I would infinitely prefer an amicable divorce. The decision to make it a murder/suicide is on those who might decide they would rather force, at the point of a gun, others to stay where they no longer wish to be.
I prefer murdering the Rodent way of life at it's roots. There will be no amicable divorce, not when the slut-wife is a bat-dropping crazy she-wolf with rabies following orders from Winnie the Pooh.
-
You are delusional. The Constitution provides for different states to be represented in the House on the basis of apportionment, therefore wielding voting rights superior/inferior to other states.
And you really do not know the history of Texas' entry into the Union. Go look it up.
How about you show me the document that says Texas can secede from the Union whenever it feels like it. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
-
@Sled Dog
@sneakypete
@Smokin Joe
@Bigun
@libertybele
@IsailedawayfromFR
I hate I came to this so late. There are good arguments made by all. But ultimately this thread needs to not die. There is an existential issue being discussed here and the drumbeat will only grow louder.
Here’s the thing:
Those in favor of secession are right: if the Constitutional government is operating extra-Constitutionally, why should they be bound by the same construct?
And another more important point:
Whether secession is explicitly or implicitly allowed or disallowed is irrelevant. Any states or people remaining after a secession will be faced with the choice of allowing those states to leave or fight to make them stay. In today’s climate, I’m not so sure which way that debate would go.
As has been alluded here, our rebellion against England was against the law of the time. If the states remaining after a secession decide that is unconstitutional, then it shall be so, and by default: unconstitutional and illegal. The seceding states no longer have a say in that matter.
Now, lets presume for the moment they deem it so.
It will not be easy. It will be horrifically bloody. There will be tumult to every facet of our way of life. Families will be split apart and untold numbers will die. The outcome is completely unknown as are the unintended consequences.
And it is wholly necessary.
I would infinitely prefer an amicable divorce. The decision to make it a murder/suicide is on those who might decide they would rather force, at the point of a gun, others to stay where they no longer wish to be.
You have the right to rebel against an unjust government. However, states don't have the right to secede from the Union.
-
There is a point where, no matter the price of the ticket, the show ain't worth it. So get up and leave. People throw around the texture and meaning of the Constitution. Too suit.
If states want out it is because their citizens want out. Dissolve a mass part of the Fed Gov and we wouldn't feel the need to leave.
Start with * and his Ho.
How are states that are split 50-50 blue and red going to secede without a violent struggle? Do really think the fed. gov. is simply going to sit it out and let some people declare themselves an independent country?
You people simply aren't thinking about the practical matters of these things.
-
How are states that are split 50-50 blue and red going to secede without a violent struggle? Do really think the fed. gov. is simply going to sit it out and let some people declare themselves an independent country?
You people simply aren't thinking about the practical matters of these things.
Look at the map. A surgical strike with my neutron bombs destroys the effed up enclaves or infestations.
It is too late for that. Though. It is time to out selfish each other.
-
How about you show me the document that says Texas can secede from the Union whenever it feels like it. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
No answer on the other comments, so you throw in a brick.
Go back and reread the thread. I already said Texas had no special privilege via a document to secede. It doesn't need one.
Freedom demands citizens of a state have the right to decide their own fate when the pact upon which it agreed has been broken by the other side.
-
How are states that are split 50-50 blue and red going to secede without a violent struggle? Do really think the fed. gov. is simply going to sit it out and let some people declare themselves an independent country?
You people simply aren't thinking about the practical matters of these things.
Yeah, am glad the Founders decided to go a different way that they way you think as this country would have never happened. There were plenty of crown loyalists that attempted to stop that Revolution. And they and the mightiest military in the world at that time failed to stop freedom from happening.
-
No answer on the other comments, so you throw in a brick.
Go back and reread the thread. I already said Texas had no special privilege via a document to secede. It doesn't need one.
Freedom demands citizens of a state have the right to decide their own fate when the pact upon which it agreed has been broken by the other side.
They do have that right.
What they don't have a right to do is impose their decision to run away on the other citizens of the state who don't want to go.
-
They do have that right.
What they don't have a right to do is impose their decision to run away on the other citizens of the state who don't want to go.
You go ahead and keep peddling that as you have yet to convince anybody here from what I can see that freedom from tyranny is not a right endemic to all men.
And it is laughable that you believe if any one person in a state believes a state should stay, that the state is not permitted to leave.
Tyranny by the smallest minority one can imagine.
-
You go ahead and keep peddling that as you have yet to convince anybody here from what I can see that freedom from tyranny is not a right endemic to all men.
And it is laughable that you believe if any one person in a state believes a state should stay, that the state is not permitted to leave.
Tyranny by the smallest minority one can imagine.
@IsailedawayfromFR @Sled Dog
I must have missed that part. If it were true,we would all be slaves.
AFAIK,we all STILL have the right to move out of the state we live in if we no longer like living there. Or even the nation,if we can find another nation less oppressive that will have us.
-
You go ahead and keep peddling that as you have yet to convince anybody here from what I can see that freedom from tyranny is not a right endemic to all men.
And it is laughable that you believe if any one person in a state believes a state should stay, that the state is not permitted to leave.
Tyranny by the smallest minority one can imagine.
No one is denied their right to emigrate.
Do you understand that? It's really a complex idea. For some.
No one has the right to force others to emigrate with them.
Do you understand that? It's even more complex, since it says "you can move if you want do, but you can't force anyone to go with you."
Deep stuff, this.
It's no wonder certain groups of people miss it completely.
It's part of "you don't have the right".
-
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now show me the language in the constitution which prohibits a state from withdrawing from the union. I've searched hard but cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra. I admit to having difficulty in reading those.
-
Yeah, am glad the Founders decided to go a different way that they way you think as this country would have never happened. There were plenty of crown loyalists that attempted to stop that Revolution. And they and the mightiest military in the world at that time failed to stop freedom from happening.
You always have the right to rebellion. Which is basically what the American CW was. States don't have the right to secede. See the difference? I guess not.
-
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now show me the language in the constitution which prohibits a state from withdrawing from the union. I've searched hard but cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra. I admit to having difficulty in reading those.
I've read that explanation for the right of secession many times. It takes a special kind of logic to twist that into the right of a state to leave the Union.
I still haven't gotten an answer as to how a state that was created by the fed. gov. after the original thirteen can be considered some sort of independent/sovereign entity and allowed to leave the Union any time it felt like it.
Do you realize what that would mean? It would mean that at any time when a certain state got a majority or whatever was needed to qualify for secession, they could do so.
So you're living in a state that you like, but a majority of state legislators decide that things are so awful, they're leaving. They're now a separate country.
I echo the words of South Carolinian pro-Unionist lawyer James Petigru who remarked when South Carolina seceded in 1860 that "South Carolina was too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum."
-
No one has the right to force others to emigrate with them.
Do you understand that? It's even more complex, since it says "you can move if you want do, but you can't force anyone to go with you."
Sure they do. Mothers and fathers have the right to force their children to leave with them. Well,maybe not the "right" according to their tribal leader/Shaman/CMMFIC,but they certainly have the moral right.
[/quote]
Mankind has been forcing people to stay against their wills since the dawn of mankind.
These same people have also been encouraging them to leave by their actions as tribal leaders.
They are the fathers of revolution.
A tale dating back all the way to the dawn of time.
-
You always have the right to rebellion. Which is basically what the American CW was. States don't have the right to secede. See the difference? I guess not.
History remains a weak topic for you doesn't it?
There was no Civil War here. The South never tried to overthrow the federal government, which is what a civil war is. It was 100% about freedom against an aggressor who tried to impose tyranny upon sovereign states.
And you missed the part badly on the point that entry by a state is made to join a voluntary union, not one where one is forever a slave.
-
History remains a weak topic for you doesn't it?
There was no Civil War here. The South never tried to overthrow the federal government, which is what a civil war is. It was 100% about freedom against an aggressor who tried to impose tyranny upon sovereign states.
And you missed the part badly on the point that entry by a state is made to join a voluntary union, not one where one is forever a slave.
:yowsa: pointing-up Exactly right!
-
Dailymail.com By Rachel Sharp 11 March 2021
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9351315/Residents-wealthy-Atlanta-community-push-police-force-amid-crime-wave.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9351315/Residents-wealthy-Atlanta-community-push-police-force-amid-crime-wave.html)
Atlanta's richest neighborhood Buckhead pushes for SECESSION and its own police force as city-wide crime explosion sees murders soar 80%: Footage emerges of rifle-wielding robbers attack wealthy resident on their doorsteps
• The Buckhead Exploratory Committee, made up of residents of the city's richest neighborhood of Buckhead, are looking to break away from the city
• The move comes in the wake of a surge in violent crime that has left people 'genuinely concerned for their safety,' they said
• In January, one woman was thrown to the ground on her driveway and had a gun held to her head before robbers made off with her purse and cellphone
• Home surveillance footage shows a man sprinting to reach the safety of his home as a car pulled up outside with a man touting a rifle
• In December, a seven-year-old girl was shot dead while Christmas shopping
• Crime data from Atlanta Police Department shows robberies increased 40 percent in the period running January 1 to February 20 compared to last year
• Aggravated assaults also increased 35 percent, auto theft 63 percent and larceny from auto theft 32 percent
• Across the city as a whole, homicides were up 80 percent compared to the same period last year, shootings 32 percent and robberies 17 percent
• Research shows crime rose in most US cities last year, with homicides up in 29 of 34 cities surveyed
Residents in a wealthy Atlanta community are trying to create their own police force as part of a push for secession as the city is rocked by a crime wave with murders up 80 percent so far this year.
The Buckhead Exploratory Committee, made up of residents of the city's richest neighborhood of Buckhead, are looking to break away from the city in the wake of a surge in violent crime that has left people 'genuinely concerned for their safety.'
In recent months, home surveillance footage captured the moment a man sprinted to reach the safety of his home as a car pulled up with a man brandishing a rifle.
-
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now show me the language in the constitution which prohibits a state from withdrawing from the union. I've searched hard but cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra. I admit to having difficulty in reading those.
Ah, geez, again?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Wow. Looks like the power to suppress insurrections is one of the enumerated powers of Congress, and hence the Tenth Amendment does not apply.
-
History remains a weak topic for you doesn't it?
There was no Civil War here. The South never tried to overthrow the federal government, which is what a civil war is. It was 100% about freedom against an aggressor who tried to impose tyranny upon sovereign states.
And you missed the part badly on the point that entry by a state is made to join a voluntary union, not one where one is forever a slave.
Yeah. There was a civil war.
Everyone was very polite and everything. Always saying "After you" "Oh, no, my dear Alfonse, after you." "No no, I insist, after you". And they'd stick out their pinkies when drinking whiskey and everything.
You guys really hate the realities of history, don't you?
You call it "Northern Aggression" when it was the secesh that fired the first shots...unprovoked first shots, at that.
Then you pretend it wasn't a civil war, possibly because they weren't polite to each other? Whatever.
When you people descend to this retarded insanity everyone else knows your case is totally lost.
The Constitution is not on your side.
History is not on your side.
The future is not on your side.
Must be damned rough, I do say.
-
Do you understand that? It's even more complex, since it says "you can move if you want do, but you can't force anyone to go with you."
Sure they do. Mothers and fathers have the right to force their children to leave with them. Well,maybe not the "right" according to their tribal leader/Shaman/CMMFIC,but they certainly have the moral right.
Seriously?
You're equating parental responsibility with someone's insane freaking NEIGHBORS demanding that everyone in the whole state be divorced from the Constitution just because they're both unhappy and ignorant?
That's the argument you're pulling out at the very end?
Who made them everyone else's Karen?
-
Conservative meeting over Texas secession draws protestors
Sports.yahoo.com Weatherford Democrat, Texas 3/7/2021
https://sports.yahoo.com/conservative-meeting-over-texas-secession-045900152.html (https://sports.yahoo.com/conservative-meeting-over-texas-secession-045900152.html)
A meeting of the Parker County Conservatives drew several left-wing activists and a slight police presence Friday night in Weatherford.
Conservatives were gathered for their monthly meeting at the Doss Center, where the topics centered around two House bills regarding provisions for "re-asserting Texas sovereignty" and "fighting back against the impending attack on our freedom," according to a meeting agenda sent out prior.
Guest speakers included a state representative out of District 73, Kyle Biedermann, who recently filed formal legislation calling for Texas secession. Biedermann was also in attendance at the January 6 rally at the U.S. Capitol, but did not storm the building.
Activists, many from the Progressives in Parker County group, showed up outside of the Doss, chanting "treason" and "traitor," with a bullhorn and signs outside the building.
-
Conservative meeting over Texas secession draws protestors
Sports.yahoo.com Weatherford Democrat, Texas 3/7/2021
https://sports.yahoo.com/conservative-meeting-over-texas-secession-045900152.html (https://sports.yahoo.com/conservative-meeting-over-texas-secession-045900152.html)
We gotta start packing our own bullhorns - "Left wing Nose Picker!" "Progressive Bed wetter!"
-
We gotta start packing our own bullhorns - "Left wing Nose Picker!" "Progressive Bed wetter!"
Just tape their own Karen shrieks and play it back at them.
-
Ah, geez, again?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Wow. Looks like the power to suppress insurrections is one of the enumerated powers of Congress, and hence the Tenth Amendment does not apply.
Sorry! No Sale!
Withdrawing from a union that is no longer serving the people of the state is NOT an insurrection no matter how hard you try to make it one.
-
Yeah. There was a civil war.
Everyone was very polite and everything. Always saying "After you" "Oh, no, my dear Alfonse, after you." "No no, I insist, after you". And they'd stick out their pinkies when drinking whiskey and everything.
You guys really hate the realities of history, don't you?
You call it "Northern Aggression" when it was the secesh that fired the first shots...unprovoked first shots, at that.
Then you pretend it wasn't a civil war, possibly because they weren't polite to each other? Whatever.
When you people descend to this retarded insanity everyone else knows your case is totally lost.
The Constitution is not on your side.
History is not on your side.
The future is not on your side.
Must be damned rough, I do say.
You obviously failed your history lessons.
I cannot communicate with one who has no ability to comprehend.
I wish you the best in the future you are willing to oblige while those who seek freedoms enjoy those freedoms elsewhere.
-
Sorry! No Sale!
Withdrawing from a union that is no longer serving the people of the state is NOT an insurrection no matter how hard you try to make it one.
Actually, it is.
You calling a rabid skunk a striped kitty doesn't change the smell.
-
The history of the world is selfishness. ALL of OUR history.
BILLIONS dead in one war or conflict after another.
From the first caveman smacking another in the head with a rock.
Nothing changes.
NOTHING CHANGES.
-
The history of the world is selfishness. ALL of OUR history.
BILLIONS dead in one war or conflict after another.
From the first caveman smacking another in the head with a rock.
Nothing changes.
NOTHING CHANGES.
Yes it does... One soul at a time, brother... :seeya: