Long after death, Confederate spy honored in Ark.

[OKTexas]

The problem with your argument is that one party to a contract can't arbitrarily decide the contract was violated by the other party, and then walk away from it.

If I contract you to put a roof on my house, and I decide you didn't do a satisfactory job, I can't simply say I'm not paying you, and that's the end of it, I win by proclamation. No.

Only if the legal authority over that contract, a judge and maybe a jury, decide that I have the right not to pay, is my refusal to pay legal.

According to you the roof should get to decide, after all it's what resulted from the contract. That makes as much sense as the feds getting to decide, they were only the result of the contract, they were not a party to it. So tell me, who would be the noninvolved unbiased arbiter? I've asked that question before, you didn't have the balls to answer.

When the law becomes intolerable, that's what rebellion is for. But rebellion is a rejection of the law of the land, and unless you win,

you are probably going to suffer serious consequences.

So your of the opinion the the solutions of the mid 19th century should be applied to political problems of the 21st. If it should come to it, I hope your wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the logic says so, OKTexas. You have offered nothing that would change a reasonable person's mind.

OKTexas is typical of the hacks who think and talk like him: buncha certainity, but no real ideas at all.

To help him out, I will note that a contract that is created by two or more parties require the parties joint agreement to dissolve it. The individual, organic authority of the state acting for its We the People electorate ended with the ratification of the Constitution.

The Constitution provides no authority for any state to leave.

The weak-headed attempts to argue this is laughable, typical of libertarians. End of story.

Really, did they have the organic power to enter to begin with? If the answer is yes, then they have the power to leave if the compact is violated.

Let's apply your theroy to marriage, if a couple takes an oath, till death do us part, are you saying neither party has the authority do disolve the marriage under any circumstances?

Now we'll see how intellectually honest you are.

You'd make a great parent, using that "Because I said so" arguement so well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to you the roof should get to decide, after all it's what resulted from the contract. That makes as much sense as the feds getting to decide, they were only the result of the contract, they were not a party to it. So tell me, who would be the noninvolved unbiased arbiter? I've asked that question before, you didn't have the balls to answer.

When the law becomes intolerable, that's what rebellion is for. But rebellion is a rejection of the law of the land, and unless you win,

you are probably going to suffer serious consequences.

So your of the opinion the the solutions of the mid 19th century should be applied to political problems of the 21st. If it should come to it, I hope your wrong.

Once again lets discuss REALITY.....

Unless we can elect 218 Congresspeople, 51 Senators and a President that all support removing the over reach OR can get a majority on the Supreme Court that believes it is over reach, the ONLY solution is revolution or living with the fact things have changed.

I would suggest based on the fact we have no revolution the over reach has not caused a tipping point into open rebellion.

There is no chance, in my personal opinion, of gaining the vote in Congress to go back and no chance of getting a majority in the Supreme Court either.

Unless you can raise an army I am afraid you will just have to live with the fact the Government is over reaching.

 

[OKTexas]

When the law becomes intolerable, that's what rebellion is for. But rebellion is a rejection of the law of the land, and unless you win,

you are probably going to suffer serious consequences.

So your of the opinion the the solutions of the mid 19th century should be applied to political problems of the 21st. If it should come to it, I hope your wrong.

Once again lets discuss REALITY.....

Unless we can elect 218 Congresspeople, 51 Senators and a President that all support removing the over reach OR can get a majority on the Supreme Court that believes it is over reach, the ONLY solution is revolution or living with the fact things have changed.

I would suggest based on the fact we have no revolution the over reach has not caused a tipping point into open rebellion.

There is no chance, in my personal opinion, of gaining the vote in Congress to go back and no chance of getting a majority in the Supreme Court either.

Unless you can raise an army I am afraid you will just have to live with the fact the Government is over reaching.

Reality you say, if things go the way they are looking now, we can have the necessary votes in congress and the white house, it's up to us to make the changes important to them. We say nothing, they will do what they want, it's that simple. When is the last time you spoke to your congressmans offices. I'm on a first name basis with mine, everyone should be. That's all I got to say, I just hope you folks don't have kids, they will live in a coutry far different than you and you can take the credit for that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing is "looking now" that will give you "the necessary votes in congress and the white house", OKTexas. No one but you and three others think secession is the answer to our issues as states and a nation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing is "looking now" that will give you "the necessary votes in congress and the white house", OKTexas. No one but you and three others think secession is the answer to our issues as states and a nation.

It only takes about 3 percent of the population to revolt. I wouldn't be so sure we are not approaching those numbers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it happens, RGS, their neighbors will simply put them against the wall.

Nothing is "looking now" that will give you "the necessary votes in congress and the white house", OKTexas. No one but you and three others think secession is the answer to our issues as states and a nation.

It only takes about 3 percent of the population to revolt. I wouldn't be so sure we are not approaching those numbers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to you the roof should get to decide, after all it's what resulted from the contract. That makes as much sense as the feds getting to decide, they were only the result of the contract, they were not a party to it. So tell me, who would be the noninvolved unbiased arbiter? I've asked that question before, you didn't have the balls to answer.

When the law becomes intolerable, that's what rebellion is for. But rebellion is a rejection of the law of the land, and unless you win,

you are probably going to suffer serious consequences.

So your of the opinion the the solutions of the mid 19th century should be applied to political problems of the 21st. If it should come to it, I hope your wrong.

Secession was the 19th century solution, or at the attempt. There is no legal avenue for a state to take if it wants to secede, that's what I'm saying.

 

[OKTexas]

Nothing is "looking now" that will give you "the necessary votes in congress and the white house", OKTexas. No one but you and three others think secession is the answer to our issues as states and a nation.

Your wrong, I didn't say succession was the answer, I said it is a possible option. Look at this administration, a large portion of the money borrowed, that your children will have to reapay, has been spent bailing out irresponsible states. You can't continue the union if responsible states are required to expend their resources time and time again, to support states that refuse to get their houses in order. There is a tipping point coming, if we don't have solutions prepared, the union will be disolved into a truly national government, or anarchy will insue.

I'm simply trying to get folks thinking, which way do you want to go. If the responsible states have the option of succession, the irresponsible states will know the life line that the federal government has provided, is not forever guaranteed. Your can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, eventually Peter is going to run out of money, or get pissed enough to protect himself. What we have now is politicians form the irresponsible states acting as the robbers by assuming federal powers that the constitution didn't provide, you tell me, what are the options to stop them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When the law becomes intolerable, that's what rebellion is for. But rebellion is a rejection of the law of the land, and unless you win,

you are probably going to suffer serious consequences.

So your of the opinion the the solutions of the mid 19th century should be applied to political problems of the 21st. If it should come to it, I hope your wrong.

Secession was the 19th century solution, or at the attempt. There is no legal avenue for a state to take if it wants to secede, that's what I'm saying.

Yes there is, they can petition Congress. In 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that unilaterally leaving was unconstitutional but that Congress could create the means to leave.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, secession is not a viable option. And no states, if in financial problems to that extent you suggest, cannot be seen as ever permitting dissolution. You seem to the think the states will make the decisions. Only as agents of We the People, do states act. We the People, through our governments, are not going to permit dissolution or secession. Congress could create the legal framework, but that would require both Houses' approval and the President's signature.

 

[OKTexas]

No, secession is not a viable option. And no states, if in financial problems to that extent you suggest, cannot be seen as ever permitting dissolution. You seem to the think the states will make the decisions. Only as agents of We the People, do states act. We the People, through our governments, are not going to permit dissolution or secession. Congress could create the legal framework, but that would require both Houses' approval and the President's signature.

No the states could do it alone, if congress would do as the constitution requires and call an Article 5 convention. All 50 states have collectively requested one, more than 600 times. Article 5 only requres two thirds request a convention, yet congress ignores them. The constitution doesn't require the states to give a reason and there is no time frame to get the two thirds required. But when we the people allow them to ignore their oath, I guess we get what we deserve. For me, that's not good enough, having taken that oath myself, I feel I have a duty to make my fellow citizens aware. You are now aware, what you do with the information is up to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress will continue to ignore any such requests. And the next I talk to my congressman, which will be at dinner sometime in December, I will be sure to tell him never to do such a thing.

 

[OKTexas]

Congress will continue to ignore any such requests. And the next I talk to my congressman, which will be at dinner sometime in December, I will be sure to tell him never to do such a thing.

At least your honestly un-American instead of closeted like most.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am all-American, son. This is a republic where we have the right to vote and tell our representatives what we think. What you think is nonsense and not worthy of any American's consideration. But I gave you consideration despite that.

Congress will continue to ignore any such requests. And the next I talk to my congressman, which will be at dinner sometime in December, I will be sure to tell him never to do such a thing.

At least your honestly un-American instead of closeted like most.

 

[OKTexas]

I am all-American, son. This is a republic where we have the right to vote and tell our representatives what we think. What you think is nonsense and not worthy of any American's consideration. But I gave you consideration despite that.

Congress will continue to ignore any such requests. And the next I talk to my congressman, which will be at dinner sometime in December, I will be sure to tell him never to do such a thing.

At least your honestly un-American instead of closeted like most.

Yet you contend telling your congressman to ignore his constitutional responsibility a good thing. Your the one contradicting yourself, I'm just pointing it out. You may disagree whith what I say, but at least I am consistent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

His constitutional responsibility is to do what he believes is best for the country. Your contradictory way is not best, and I am sure my friend will agree with me that you way is not the way to go.

I am all-American, son. This is a republic where we have the right to vote and tell our representatives what we think. What you think is nonsense and not worthy of any American's consideration. But I gave you consideration despite that.

At least your honestly un-American instead of closeted like most.

Yet you contend telling your congressman to ignore his constitutional responsibility a good thing. Your the one contradicting yourself, I'm just pointing it out. You may disagree whith what I say, but at least I am consistent.

 

[OKTexas]

His constitutional responsibility is to do what he believes is best for the country. Your contradictory way is not best, and I am sure my friend will agree with me that you way is not the way to go.

I am all-American, son. This is a republic where we have the right to vote and tell our representatives what we think. What you think is nonsense and not worthy of any American's consideration. But I gave you consideration despite that.

Yet you contend telling your congressman to ignore his constitutional responsibility a good thing. Your the one contradicting yourself, I'm just pointing it out. You may disagree whith what I say, but at least I am consistent.

Sorry friend, his oath is to the constitution, not his own opinion, if he doesn't understand that he has no business being in office.