Secession

secession

  • no, period

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • yes, period

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • yes, constitution allows

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • yes, but the aftermath of the war is not worth it

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • no, constitution strictly forbids

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • i'm not sure

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • Total voters
    24
Can people please post the most important part of the videos they present, not all of us have fucking speakers OK? ;)

Dr. Paul essentially re-affirmed that we became a nation through secession, that secession is a constitutional right, and that secession is not treason.

I disliked Ron Paul's idealistic assault on the Fed's, but since the action of the Fed I've sided more with his idealism, the Fed must go down; and Congress must reclaim the monetary policy.

If congress weren't so busy messing with our lives, they could spend more time coming up with sound monetary policy that reflected their constituent's needs and not the needs of New York Bankers.

Ron Paul's a good guy, probably would be voted president of the New-Confederacy without ever having to put his name in the ballot heh.

Glad to hear you've seen the light on the Fed.

As to Ron Paul being voted President of a "New-Confederacy," I'd highly doubt it. George W. Bush would probably take that office.
 
Well I always defended the Fed on the grounds it provides stability, this is partially true. I also was fairly pragmatic in my views against it, it is pretty much a political giant that's not going anywhere...

But, my views should change, we should wage a war on the Federal Reserve, and break the back of New York City, like Andrew Jackson did against the second US Bank.

The power of the Reserve is too corrupting, the connection between banks and the Feds is too destructive to liberty, it must go, and if that means NYC becomes a ghost town so be it!

Let someone else in the world have financial power, we don't need it, we have military power and an armed populace and that means a lot more.

The Federal Reserve is why the perfectly good Bear Stearn's collapsed...not because of market forces, but because of dictatorial decision making by the Feds.
 
Well I'm afraid the Fed doesn't provide stability at all. Our current economic crisis should be proof enough, let alone the Great Depression or the stagflation of the 70's. However, too many people want to blame the "free market."
 
Well it appeared that it did, but now whether it did or not is up for debate. The ultimate reality is that the FED serves the interests of the North-East.

Andrew Jackson killed the beast as a loyal southerner.

Thomas L. Jackson rightly said that "this war is machinated by the New York bankers for their own gain and nothing more."

The Fed is simply the conquest of America by the North East, but the last 30 years have been conservatives trying to break the chains...Ron Paul's probably come closer than most to doing so, but I feel the next wave will do it.
 
That might be one of the most retarded things I've ever seen written.

kind of like the sociopath who says "I need to kill you to save you"

damn...

Well mostly that was intended to be funny, but your analogy to the sociopath doesn't fit whatsoever. I'm not sure why you zeroed in on that part of the post while ignoring the actual argument that I made in favor of secession.
On what legal grounds would secession from the union be considered in the legislature or executive of any state ?
What transgressions have been committed against any state or its inhabitants that would justify even mentioning overrulling all the hard work of our forefathers in building this republic ?

Little remains of the hard work our forefathers put in to building this Nation. There's nothing left of it but an empty shell and jokes for human beings deluding themselves and trying to fool everyone else that any such thing as Constitutional law left here.
 
In any case, if a state or states do secede, it will be the preclude to another Civil War.

I've been saying another Civil War is coming for years.
 
That might be one of the most retarded things I've ever seen written.

kind of like the sociopath who says "I need to kill you to save you"

damn...

Well mostly that was intended to be funny, but your analogy to the sociopath doesn't fit whatsoever. I'm not sure why you zeroed in on that part of the post while ignoring the actual argument that I made in favor of secession.
On what legal grounds would secession from the union be considered in the legislature or executive of any state ?
What transgressions have been committed against any state or its inhabitants that would justify even mentioning overrulling all the hard work of our forefathers in building this republic ?

The Argument for a Right of Unilateral Secession: A Pact Among the States

The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession. Accordingly, the argument for a right of unilateral secession begins (and pretty much ends) with a claim about the very nature of the Constitution.

That document, by the terms of its Article VII, only obtained legal force through the ratification by nine states, and then only in the states so ratifying it. Because the Constitution derived its initial force from the voluntary act of consent by the sovereign states, secessionists argued, a state could voluntarily and unilaterally withdraw its consent from the Union.

In this view, the Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union.
FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top