Free Country News: Feds raid Texas secessionist meeting

[bripat9643]

Anyone can discuss secession.

But if two who are associated with a group have sent fictitious summons out to legal office holders, the LEO have the right to identify anyone found at such a meeting.

No private association under law exists to protect the identify of possible conspirators.

Is there a law against issuing a fictitious summons?

Is there a law against forging government documents? Yeah. Retard.

That would be an attempt to make a copy of a legal subpoena. That isn't what they did, moron.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm talking law, and what the law says. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways the courts can't come after them but no, as long as they remain within the confines of written law there's nothing to legally go after them for. That's how a lot of these "organizations" get away with what they claim.
If they continue to pay their taxes, abide by legal mandates, etc they are not "technically" in rebellion.

-They declare the power to coin money (that power belongs to Congress per the constitution).
-They attempt to exercise sovereignty by convening an alternative government.
-They attempt to execute court summons.
-They attempt to hold bankruptcy proceedings (that power belongs to the federal government, per the constitution).

All this is within the "confines" of written law? None of this is an act of rebellion? You really mean to tell me that the power of the government to lay down rebellions doesn't apply as long as it's a "peaceful" rebellion? Or as long as the government doesn't lose money?

You are missing the point, obviously. If they were considered in open rebellion don't you think they'd be in jail right now? You're supposed to have a brain, use it.
The paying of taxes (in instances such as this) negates the idea of sedition as those involved are not engaged in insurrection as does their obeying all laws, respecting legal actions, etc because they are not "in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof". There's a fine line you're not seeing.
You or I can do all those things, what got them in trouble was flooding the courts with bogus documents, writs, warrants, etc. so no, none of it is considered an act of rebellion.
If we tried to pass off our own printed money we'd be laughed at by any and all businesses, now if we printed "counterfeit" US currency then we'd be in big trouble. Take some Monopoly money to Walmart and try to use it to pay for the items you want to purchase, you won't go to jail (unless you leave with said items) but you will be kicked out of the store.
The legitimate courts will not recognize any proceedings their so called court is engaged in so whatever that court does is simply a moot point.
You have a weird idea of what legally constitutes open rebellion.

Oh and they would potentially be in violation of the Sedition Act if someone, because of their movement/beliefs/teachings did indeed enter into open rebellion against the United States and or it's laws.

 

[S.J.]

Using force to prevent secession is like an abusive boyfriend who ties up his girlfriend who decides to leave him.

Not really, but nice try. There's a lot more to it legally and the argument still rages as whether or not any state or group of states have the constitutional authority to separate from the Union.

Thomas Jefferson says they do.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson

 

[Ringel05]

Using force to prevent secession is like an abusive boyfriend who ties up his girlfriend who decides to leave him.

Not really, but nice try. There's a lot more to it legally and the argument still rages as whether or not any state or group of states have the constitutional authority to separate from the Union.

Thomas Jefferson says they do.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson

I know that, not my point as others will come back and state "since it wasn't included withing the framework of the Constitution" it means nothing. Basically an argument that will simply run both sides in circles. Been there, done that, not interested.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't suppose that they start their meetings with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag."....one nation, indivisible....", and all that.....

 

[S.J.]

Using force to prevent secession is like an abusive boyfriend who ties up his girlfriend who decides to leave him.

Not really, but nice try. There's a lot more to it legally and the argument still rages as whether or not any state or group of states have the constitutional authority to separate from the Union.

Thomas Jefferson says they do.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson

I know that, not my point as others will come back and state "since it wasn't included withing the framework of the Constitution" it means nothing. Basically an argument that will simply run both sides in circles. Been there, done that, not interested.

Neither was seizing property and using government to intimidate citizens and stifle their first amendment rights but the liberal idiots on this thread seem to think it's ok.

 

[S.J.]

I don't suppose that they start their meetings with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag."....one nation, indivisible....", and all that.....

They're interested in preserving the rights given to us by our founding fathers under the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't suppose that they start their meetings with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag."....one nation, indivisible....", and all that.....

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by some boot-licking commie. It was designed to instil servility, not patriotism.

 

[Ringel05]

Using force to prevent secession is like an abusive boyfriend who ties up his girlfriend who decides to leave him.

Not really, but nice try. There's a lot more to it legally and the argument still rages as whether or not any state or group of states have the constitutional authority to separate from the Union.

Thomas Jefferson says they do.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson

I know that, not my point as others will come back and state "since it wasn't included withing the framework of the Constitution" it means nothing. Basically an argument that will simply run both sides in circles. Been there, done that, not interested.

Neither was seizing property and using government to intimidate citizens and stifle their first amendment rights but the liberal idiots on this thread seem to think it's ok.

Again, it depends on what legal basis the authorities used. If they did indeed violate the members Civil Rights then they have recourse under the law and those responsible need be taken to task for their actions. But do you, I or anyone here not intimately involved in this situation have knowledge about all the circumstances surrounding the article? No we don't so jumping to conclusions based on limited information is ludicrous at best. I agree that the leftists are okay with it despite the law but I've read more than a few liberals in this thread who are arguing based on the law.
Of course we have some reactionaries here who are looking to make this something it may not be. Such is life.......

 

[Dana7360]

Personally, I have no problem with Texas leaving the union. However the US government will have to be paid proper compensation for all US government land, buildings and infrastructure that are in Texas. They can't just keep US military bases. They need to pay for them. They just can't keep all the NASA facilities, they need to pay for them. If they want to keep those federally funded interstate freeways, they need to pay for them.

I would say that what they really need to do is to pay the government that state's portion of the public debt, being an amount proportionate to the proportion of the US population comprising the state. Never bothered to consider the US evacuating military facilities. After all, we have military bases in other countries.

By my calculations, Texas will need to pony up $1,659,369,165,360 ($1.7 trillion) to cover their share.

I agree they should pay their portion of the public debt that was acquired while they were a part of the United States.

I might go even farther and make them pay interest too.

That's true that we have military bases in other nations. If our military bases were left in place those bases would be part of the United States.

 

[Ringel05]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

 

[Ringel05]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

Depends on how one defines "Liberal".........

 

[S.J.]

Personally, I have no problem with Texas leaving the union. However the US government will have to be paid proper compensation for all US government land, buildings and infrastructure that are in Texas. They can't just keep US military bases. They need to pay for them. They just can't keep all the NASA facilities, they need to pay for them. If they want to keep those federally funded interstate freeways, they need to pay for them.

I would say that what they really need to do is to pay the government that state's portion of the public debt, being an amount proportionate to the proportion of the US population comprising the state. Never bothered to consider the US evacuating military facilities. After all, we have military bases in other countries.

By my calculations, Texas will need to pony up $1,659,369,165,360 ($1.7 trillion) to cover their share.

I agree they should pay their portion of the public debt that was acquired while they were a part of the United States.

I might go even farther and make them pay interest too.

That's true that we have military bases in other nations. If our military bases were left in place those bases would be part of the United States.

There ya go. Drive the girlfriend away with your abuse, then make her pay you back for all those dinners you paid for so you could get in her pants.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't suppose that they start their meetings with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag."....one nation, indivisible....", and all that.....

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by some boot-licking commie. It was designed to instil servility, not patriotism.

"Francis Julius Bellamy was born in Mount Morris, NY. His family was deeply involved in the Baptist church and they moved to Rome, NY when Bellamy was only 5. Here, Bellamy became an active member of the First Baptist Church; which his father was minister of until his death in 1864. He attended college at the University of Rochester, in Rochester, NY and studied theology and was part of the Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity."


Nothing like a commie there little infant. He truly believed in the teachings of Jesus.

"Bellamy was a Christian Socialist[1] who "championed 'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.'"[6] In 1891, Bellamy was forced from his Boston pulpit for his socialist sermons, and eventually stopped attending church altogether after moving to Florida, reportedly because of the racism he witnessed there.[7]"

His original Pledge read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to* the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
(* 'to' added in October 1892).
Francis Bellamy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Using force to prevent secession is like an abusive boyfriend who ties up his girlfriend who decides to leave him.

Not really, but nice try. There's a lot more to it legally and the argument still rages as whether or not any state or group of states have the constitutional authority to separate from the Union.

Thomas Jefferson says they do.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson

Out of context and not in the law. Tough.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

Depends on how one defines "Liberal".........

That's not difficult. Find one who goes with this, to the death.


liberalism
noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

 

[S.J.]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

A true American plays by the rules and obeys the laws set forth in the Constitution. This administration and the Democratic Party have abused their power and rendered the Constitution null and void.

 

[S.J.]

Using force to prevent secession is like an abusive boyfriend who ties up his girlfriend who decides to leave him.

Not really, but nice try. There's a lot more to it legally and the argument still rages as whether or not any state or group of states have the constitutional authority to separate from the Union.

Thomas Jefferson says they do.

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...
to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying,
'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson

Out of context and not in the law. Tough.

You're not concerned with the law. If you were, you wouldn't defend this outlaw administration.

 

[SwimExpert]

You are missing the point, obviously. If they were considered in open rebellion don't you think they'd be in jail right now? You're supposed to have a brain, use it.

You seem hung up on violence being the metric here, and I just don't see any justification for that. If half the states in the country decided to declare themselves not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, do they have to actually resort to violence before the United States takes action? If that's your position, than any state can secede any time it wants, and nobody can stop them as long as they do it peacefully. Hell, I can declare my house an independent nation, and the United States has to simply agree as long as I don't resort to violence.

As far as I can see, these people are in open rebellion. Just because they haven't resorted to violence does not change the fact. They are holding an alternate government and claiming sovereignty over territory that is sovereign United States territory. They are attempting to perform inherently governmental functions, including the convening of courts and summoning people under the jurisdiction of the United States to appear before said courts, as if the jurisdiction of the United States were nonexistent. If that does not meet the description of being against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, then what is?

The government has the power to suppress rebellions. It has the power to investigate suspected cases of rebellion. I'm not sure why you are demanding that violence has to happen before the government can even investigate.