Monckton: It’s Time For ‘Texit’ — Texas Should Secede, Thatcher Advisor Says

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Disagreeing with your opinion is not lying.

So your opinion is that all states in this country are equal to each other and none have a superiority over another as per Constitution?  This can only mean they have the same representation for all laws in order to be true.

If that is not true, then of course you are lying on the facts, not just opinions.

[RedHead]

Lying once again.  In this country, a majority of states is not needed for any Congressional action.  Only sufficient votes by representatives in Congress is required.

I guess we are reading different constitutions.  In the one I'm reading admission to the union requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress.  That's pretty much impossible unless the senators and representatives from a majority of the states vote yes.

This could very well be by a minority of states.

Hard to see how mathematically but feel free to try.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, or are deliberate in lying.

Which is it?

Neither.

[RedHead]

States are unequal if they do not have the same voting powers.

States are unequal because they vary in size and population too.  But under the Constitution there is not a power or right or privilege that one state has which all the other states don't have as well. 

Do you understand what that means?

Do you?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But to end that relationship completely takes a court, a settlement of questions of disagreement, and generally the agreement of both parties.  If one spouse, abused or otherwise, merely walks out then they still are legally joined with the other spouse.

And therein is one of your many problems.

While desirous of an amicable process, in the final analysis, we do not really care whether we can 'legally' secede. 

Does an abused spouse care if she can legally escape from abuse?  She wants to survive, and she does not care one wit on a 'relationship'.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hard to see how mathematically but feel free to try.

I understand now, as you are challenged on the math.

It would do me no good to try to correct at this point as your teachers failed you.

[RedHead]

So your opinion is that all states in this country are equal to each other and none have a superiority over another as per Constitution?  This can only mean they have the same representation for all laws in order to be true.

We really are operating from different constitutions aren't we?  Because the one I am going from has Article I, Section 2.  And what a clause in that article says is that members of the House of Representatives will be apportioned among the states according to population.  It does not say that some states will have their representatives determined by one formula and other states by a different one.  It does not say that one state's representatives can do something that other state representatives cannot.  It says that each and every state will be treated the same when apportioning representation in the House.  So I don't see how you can conclude that unless every state has exactly the same number of representatives then they aren't equal in the powers and rights that all other states enjoy.

If that is not true, then of course you are lying on the facts, not just opinions.

Or you are just being completely puzzle-headed.  Again.

[RedHead]

And therein is one of your many problems.

While desirous of an amicable process, in the final analysis, we do not really care whether we can 'legally' secede. 

And the truth comes out.  You are not interested in right or wrong, fair or unfair.  You have no use for the Constitution unless you can use it as a weapon against the other states.  You want to walk out regardless.  Why didn't you say so to begin with?

Does an abused spouse care if she can legally escape from abuse?  She wants to survive, and she does not care one wit on a 'relationship'.

As I pointed out to Bigun when he used the same analogy, any spouse can walk out even if the abuse is entirely imaginary.  But to end the marriage requires the rule of law and a negotiated settlement agreed to by both sides.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We really are operating from different constitutions aren't we?  Because the one I am going from has Article I, Section 2.  And what a clause in that article says is that members of the House of Representatives will be apportioned among the states according to population.  It does not say that some states will have their representatives determined by one formula and other states by a different one.  It does not say that one state's representatives can do something that other state representatives cannot.  It says that each and every state will be treated the same when apportioning representation in the House.  So I don't see how you can conclude that unless every state has exactly the same number of representatives then they aren't equal in the powers and rights that all other states enjoy.

Or you are just being completely puzzle-headed.  Again.

This is getting to be fun.

You, who I presume to be a citizen of the US, think that a state which has more electors in the electoral college, and more representatives in the House, is an equal in passing laws in this country compared to a state which has less of both.

And you are of the opinion having that difference does not give you more or less powers to effect this country's laws compared to another state.

I see why you are puzzled.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And the truth comes out.  You are not interested in right or wrong, fair or unfair.  You have no use for the Constitution unless you can use it as a weapon against the other states.  You want to walk out regardless.  Why didn't you say so to begin with?

Go reread the Declaration of Independence.  We just got through celebrating it, and it will open your eyes to see what all that fuss was about way back then.

It is so sad that many in this great country have forgotten what true freedom is, and I see many instances on this thread of their continued presence.

[RedHead]

This is getting to be fun.

No, just repetitive.

You, who I presume to be a citizen of the US, think that a state which has more electors in the electoral college, and more representatives in the House, is an equal in passing laws in this country compared to a state which has less of both.

In terms of their rights and privileges under the Constitution then yes they are.  You keep ignoring the rights, powers, privileges part of my post and go to population and real estate.  Things really are different under your constitution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In terms of their rights and privileges under the Constitution then yes they are.  You keep ignoring the rights, powers, privileges part of my post and go to population and real estate.  Things really are different under your constitution.

I note you are changing what you you said previously, say on post 913, wherein you declared that a majority of states were required to effect action under the laws of this country.

That is a lie, but then again, you are mathematically challenged, as proven on earlier posts, and you may just be unable to figure it out correctly.

[Sanguine]

......
If you say the compact is broken and I say it is not, then what makes you right and me wrong?

This may help:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,215099.msg956910/topicseen.html#new

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In terms of their rights and privileges under the Constitution then yes they are.  You keep ignoring the rights, powers, privileges part of my post and go to population and real estate.  Things really are different under your constitution.

You are very confused.  Only in the Senate are states treated equally.

The House and the Presidency is skewed to favor more populous states, hence, the States are unequal in this country to effect changes.

[DiogenesLamp]

So after the war, the North being complete hypocrites about slavery, reinstituted it?

No,  after they realized that they had lost all chance of profiting from it,   they abolished it out of revenge.    It had also  became politically impossible for them to do anything else by this point. 




If you think they did it as a result of any concern for the slaves,  you should examine how they were treated in the North when they were free.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, this thread has become repetitively off track.  No new information being exchanged; just insults and SOS.

The principle of Independence as asserted in the Declaration of Independence is essential to the topic of any state seeking Independence.   Unless the point can be established that a population has resort to breaking away from a larger Union,   then no further movement in this direction can be accomplished.   


The entire question of Independence hinges on this salient point,  which some believe the US Civil War settled in the negative.   


Therefore,   a refutation of the policy positions of the Subjugating agency is necessary to redeem the original principle.   

[DiogenesLamp]

My reason for not wanting it to continue is that this is about Texas seceding NOW.  Bringing the war and slavery into the argument is a classic way to shut down any argument about the rightness, allowability, and possibility of secession. 

If we want to argue old wars, that's fine; I just don't think it should be used to derail this very important and current topic.  We should start another topic.

When you talk of secession,   the very first thing people say is "Civil War."   (and then inevitably,  "Slavery.")



Might as well deal with that elephant up front.   If you don't have good answers to those arguments,  you don't have good answers at all. 

[DiogenesLamp]

The North did not start a war to defend their ability to keep people in bondage.  The South did.

That statement is dripping with so much Irony that i'm surprised even you can't see it.    What were they doing then,  if it wasn't keeping the South in bondage?   

Didn't the South want to be free?   Should the principle of freedom apply to individuals,  but not to entire populations?   


The South tried to leave the Union plantation,  and they were treated exactly as one would a runaway slave.   "No,  you can't leave without your master's permission."   

[DiogenesLamp]

You can't get credit for a moral accomplishment when "freeing the slaves"   was not a goal of the war until nearly two years into it.   

I never suggested that it was.

To the contrary.   When you make "slavery"  the centerpiece of your argument,   you are implicitly asserting that the Union fought a war to end it.


If you do not believe it was germane to why the Union was fighting,  why bring it up?   

[RedHead]

This may help:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,215099.msg956910/topicseen.html#new

Sorry but it doesn't help at all.

[RedHead]

I note you are changing what you you said previously, say on post 913, wherein you declared that a majority of states were required to effect action under the laws of this country.

That is a lie, but then again, you are mathematically challenged, as proven on earlier posts, and you may just be unable to figure it out correctly.

In reply 913 I was quoting Johnathan Swift to Cowboyway.  So who is lying or the mathematically challenged one?

[RedHead]

That statement is dripping with so much Irony that i'm surprised even you can't see it.   

Almost as ironic as those who say the South was fighting for freedom?

But while you're here, I'd like to extend an invitation for you to check out this site - http://civilwartalk.com/

I'm sure they'd love to see you strut your stuff.

[RedHead]

To the contrary.   When you make "slavery"  the centerpiece of your argument,   you are implicitly asserting that the Union fought a war to end it.

Doesn't that imply the South was fighting to protect it?

If you do not believe it was germane to why the Union was fighting,  why bring it up?

As the reason why the South started the war.

[Cowboyway]

author=RedHead link=topic=210791.msg957984#msg957984 date=1467996934

Why?

Why?  You know why.  If it is implied that congress can consent or deny state secession then consent of the states isn't required or even implied.  Your entire argument about consent of the states is gone as you should be, non-sequitur.

[DiogenesLamp]

And even then it wasn't because they cared about the slaves,   it was because they wanted revenge against the South for having fought them so hard. 

It was because the South started the war, so their only option was to fight or surrender.

That the South started the War is one of the topics in dispute,  but saying it's true for the sake of argument,   your statement implies they abolished slavery "because the South started the war."    That is factually contradicted by both Abraham Lincoln and W.T. Sherman who make it clear that the South could have kept slavery,   even though they are regarded by both parties as having "started the war."   


In other words,  you statement doesn't make logical sense.   They obviously didn't abolish slavery "because the South started the war."   Therefore they must have done it for some other reason.   

You forget that Sherman was speaking of the past.  In 1864 the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued so he was right, all the powers on Earth couldn't restore their slaves.

But the Emancipation was *NOT*  issued on April 12,  1861.   It was issued  January 1, 1863.   See the problem?   "Cause" must precede "effect."    No time travel allowed.   Conflicts cannot have retroactive causes.   



In order for a war to be *about*  something,   the thing that it is about must exist at the time.    It didn't exist until 18 months later,   so obviously the war could not have been about Emancipation.   


So why was the Union fighting those first 18 months?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Almost as ironic as those who say the South was fighting for freedom?

They were fighting because they were invaded.   Someone decided to invade for some reason that curiously didn't seem to involve instructions to do anything about slavery.   

But while you're here, I'd like to extend an invitation for you to check out this site - http://civilwartalk.com/

I'm sure they'd love to see you strut your stuff.

I might get into it.   I am a firm believer in the scientific principle known as falsification.   Currently I have what I regard as a pretty good theory.   If someone knowledgeable can provide information that demonstrates the theory is incorrect,   I can toss it out.   The theory must be tested by opposition partisans.    If they can find no real holes in it,  I can regard it as sound.   


I can't imagine any more knowledgeable people on this subject than those who devote so much time to researching it.