Ron Paul on secession. So right!

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I once lived in Ron Paul's district. An interesting and unrelated side note of history that no one has explained is the call made to Paul's predecessor warning of the bombing of Fish Murray building in Oklahoma City.

Paul is a good man and he is an independent thinker.

I have long valued Paul and i honor him
for despite his sometimes self-serving flights of political fancy
he always has been a voice worth listening to.

But his preaching secession
rather
than national renewal
by means of a new party
is downright silly and thus
leads me to believe
that Paul, wounded and worried by defeat,
is searching for a new and more rewarding destiny and
that age has worsened his already fusty political thinking.

SHOCKLEY

Ron Paul isn't preaching secession. He merely stated that it's constitutional, and the idea upon which the U.S. government was founded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ron Paul: Secession Is an American Principle - YouTube

He is a douche bag! He mentions states thought they had a right to secede from the state, but he is wrong! No where in the constitution (his FAVORITE PHRASE) does it say that states have a right to sucede from the union. It says how they can join, but not that they have a right to sucede. The Civil War ANSWERED that question on the right to sucede (interesting he is the same douche bag that doesn't approve of that war)!

Nice example of Russia. What a douche bag comment! We applauded stated SUCESSION from Russia, because WE WERE IN THE COLD WAR AND RUSSIA WAS (AND STILL IS) OUR ENEMY! Sucession made them WEAKER! As it would make us WEAKER!!! Of course we would applaud our enemy, the EVIL RED EMPIRE, getting weaker!

And we didn't sucede from the British! We were a colony and never part of the Britian (no say in the government, laws forced on us and taxation without representation). We formed a nation, not suceded from a nation we were a part of! He says sucession is in our blood? What an illogical red herring, Ron Ron just looks even more and more clueless!

Go off into the sunset nutjob!

Again, please explain to me how signing the documents that GUARANTEE our right to self-determination abrogates that right?

Because by signing the documents you are making a self determination to become a part of a nation, and in the process be bound by the supreme law of the land, which is the Consitution.

 

[LibertyLemming]

He is a douche bag! He mentions states thought they had a right to secede from the state, but he is wrong! No where in the constitution (his FAVORITE PHRASE) does it say that states have a right to sucede from the union. It says how they can join, but not that they have a right to sucede. The Civil War ANSWERED that question on the right to sucede (interesting he is the same douche bag that doesn't approve of that war)!

Nice example of Russia. What a douche bag comment! We applauded stated SUCESSION from Russia, because WE WERE IN THE COLD WAR AND RUSSIA WAS (AND STILL IS) OUR ENEMY! Sucession made them WEAKER! As it would make us WEAKER!!! Of course we would applaud our enemy, the EVIL RED EMPIRE, getting weaker!

And we didn't sucede from the British! We were a colony and never part of the Britian (no say in the government, laws forced on us and taxation without representation). We formed a nation, not suceded from a nation we were a part of! He says sucession is in our blood? What an illogical red herring, Ron Ron just looks even more and more clueless!

Go off into the sunset nutjob!

Again, please explain to me how signing the documents that GUARANTEE our right to self-determination abrogates that right?

Because by signing the documents you are making a self determination to become a part of a nation, and in the process be bound by the supreme law of the land, which is the Consitution.

Which allows secession and was drafted directly after such activity.

 

[GuyPinestra]

He is a douche bag! He mentions states thought they had a right to secede from the state, but he is wrong! No where in the constitution (his FAVORITE PHRASE) does it say that states have a right to sucede from the union. It says how they can join, but not that they have a right to sucede. The Civil War ANSWERED that question on the right to sucede (interesting he is the same douche bag that doesn't approve of that war)!

Nice example of Russia. What a douche bag comment! We applauded stated SUCESSION from Russia, because WE WERE IN THE COLD WAR AND RUSSIA WAS (AND STILL IS) OUR ENEMY! Sucession made them WEAKER! As it would make us WEAKER!!! Of course we would applaud our enemy, the EVIL RED EMPIRE, getting weaker!

And we didn't sucede from the British! We were a colony and never part of the Britian (no say in the government, laws forced on us and taxation without representation). We formed a nation, not suceded from a nation we were a part of! He says sucession is in our blood? What an illogical red herring, Ron Ron just looks even more and more clueless!

Go off into the sunset nutjob!

Again, please explain to me how signing the documents that GUARANTEE our right to self-determination abrogates that right?

Because by signing the documents you are making a self determination to become a part of a nation, and in the process be bound by the supreme law of the land, which is the Consitution.

And where in that Constitution does it say that the right of self-determination is ceded?

 

[jillian]

Again, please explain to me how signing the documents that GUARANTEE our right to self-determination abrogates that right?

Because by signing the documents you are making a self determination to become a part of a nation, and in the process be bound by the supreme law of the land, which is the Consitution.

And where in that Constitution does it say that the right of self-determination is ceded?

read.... .

Texas v. White, 1869

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Will you assholes elect Mitt President of Teabaggistan?

LOL I gotta admit, that was funny!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I see a lot of you people still subscribe to the false left/right paradigm even if it's part of a soverign state? For cripes sakes...we libertarians are fucked no matter what. Big government "liberals" who want to tax tax tax regulate regulate regulate spend spend spend inflate inflate inflate on one side of me, and neocon religious war mongering nuts on the other side of me.

Where ever shall the fiscally responsible and socially accepting crowd who does not believe in war unless warred upon go?

Rand Paul said this today:



Paul says he’ll return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party :


He’ll push to loosen marijuana penalties, legalize undocumented immigrants and pursue a less aggressive American foreign policy.

Call it the Rand Paul Evolution.

Read more: Welcome to the Rand Paul evolution - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

The problems facing the country in order of severity:
1. NDAA
2. Police State / Patriot Act / TSA
3. monetary policy / inflation / the fed
4. The existence of a federal income tax
5. America's unfounded new 21st century principle of "All brown people overseas must die by drone."
6. the drug war
7. social crap.

I guess it's nice he is thinking about #5. *eye roll*

All of you NUMB NUTZ , leave your constant crocodile tears out in regard to social issues.. Social issues had exactly ZERO relevance in this election, so STFU already worrying about those of us who support life.. Go decriminalize some other recreational drug you fuckin losers.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Because by signing the documents you are making a self determination to become a part of a nation, and in the process be bound by the supreme law of the land, which is the Consitution.

And where in that Constitution does it say that the right of self-determination is ceded?

read.... .

Texas v. White, 1869

IOW, it doesn't.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ron Paul: Secession Is an American Principle - YouTube

He is a douche bag! He mentions states thought they had a right to secede from the state, but he is wrong! No where in the constitution (his FAVORITE PHRASE) does it say that states have a right to sucede from the union. It says how they can join, but not that they have a right to sucede. The Civil War ANSWERED that question on the right to sucede (interesting he is the same douche bag that doesn't approve of that war)!

Nice example of Russia. What a douche bag comment! We applauded stated SUCESSION from Russia, because WE WERE IN THE COLD WAR AND RUSSIA WAS (AND STILL IS) OUR ENEMY! Sucession made them WEAKER! As it would make us WEAKER!!! Of course we would applaud our enemy, the EVIL RED EMPIRE, getting weaker!

And we didn't sucede from the British! We were a colony and never part of the Britian (no say in the government, laws forced on us and taxation without representation). We formed a nation, not suceded from a nation we were a part of! He says sucession is in our blood? What an illogical red herring, Ron Ron just looks even more and more clueless!

Go off into the sunset nutjob!

...nor does the constitution prohibit it. Get a clue...10th amendment. read it.

There’s a difference between reading and comprehending.

It was neither the Framers’ original intent, nor has the Amendment been understood subsequently, to function as some sort of ‘nullifying device’ allowing the states to ignore the Federal courts, the Supreme Court, the High Court’s rulings, or Federal legislation:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, Federal courts, and Federal law, that they were binding and absolute upon the states:

This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 . P. 4.

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 18.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Consequently, the rulings of the Supreme Court become the law of the land, accepted and settled, and they establish what the Constitution means. Per Texas v. White, therefore, states are not authorized by the Constitution to ‘secede,’ except in the context of comprehensive revolution, or by the consent of all the states. One, or two, or 30 states may not ‘secede’ of their own accord.