The End of Liberalism

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm still waiting for you to show me where the constitution denies the people or the member states the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it.

Now the Rebels are right and legal if they win but not if they lose? Once again we establish that your people have no values or principles and simply believe in the virtue of the biggest gun.

Not this circle jerk again.

How about you show us the part of the constitution where states are allowed to leave? It's not there and you know it. It is the same for your rhetorical question.

As for your last:

Do you mean to tell me that history is written by the winners? I am shocked by this!

The fact that it is not mentioned in any part gives that right to the states since states have any power that is not already granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to them by the constitution.

Don't confuse them with facts.

You can refer to the Constitutions all you want, but they don't know how to read anyway.

 

[ihopehefails]

Nor 'We the People who loathe rights and liberties, in order to surrender our right to self-determination so we may be ruled over by a state just like the one we just fought to break away from..'

Man-oh-man. If only there were some sort of historical event to consider this issue under...

Oh yeah, there is. The Civil War.

Let me guess: Lincoln was a tyrant! The North's actions were illegal! blah, blah, fucking blah.

All while sitting in your cozy little house surfing the cozy little internet in a country where you have an unprecedented amount of freedom.

Yeah, you poor neo-secessionists are so oppressed. At least the South had the tariff to be pissed off about. You guys just have sour grapes over imagined injustices.

At any rate, what is your revolution going to consist of? A proletarian uprising?

I miss the good old days when conservatives claimed Lincoln as their own and took credit for conservatism freeing the slaves. Back when the GOP was the party of Lincoln,

not the party of Jefferson Davis.

J. Davis and many southerners were wrong to believe in slavery but they were legally correct to leave. They had that right to do so even if they were using that right for an immoral purpose.

 

[ihopehefails]

something to chew:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.‘ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

There Is No “Right of Secession” Guaranteed by the Constitution « The Good Democrat

That is not the basis for forming an opinion about the legality of any actions taken by the federal government since it is not the constitution itself because you can't quote his words as the document that determines the powers of the federal government.

 

[geauxtohell]

I miss the good old days when conservatives claimed Lincoln as their own and took credit for conservatism freeing the slaves. Back when the GOP was the party of Lincoln,

not the party of Jefferson Davis.

I think this is a cathartic exercise for most of them. I mean, it's easier than dealing with their current reality.

Of course, in the end they know all their chest thumping and academic debates aren't going to change a damn thing.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wrong. The States have the power to secede and pursue their right to self-determination. This is per the Constitution as has been proven repeatedly in this very thread.

Oh please.

Better contact the judiciary and every law school in America.

We can agree to read the constitution differently, and you can choose to ignore Texas V. White, but you don't get the power of fiat.

Especially on an issue this large.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm still waiting for you to show me where the constitution denies the people or the member states the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it.

Now the Rebels are right and legal if they win but not if they lose? Once again we establish that your people have no values or principles and simply believe in the virtue of the biggest gun.

Not this circle jerk again.

How about you show us the part of the constitution where states are allowed to leave? It's not there and you know it. It is the same for your rhetorical question.

As for your last:

Do you mean to tell me that history is written by the winners? I am shocked by this!

The fact that it is not mentioned in any part gives that right to the states since states have any power that is not already granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to them by the constitution.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wrong. The States have the power to secede and pursue their right to self-determination. This is per the Constitution as has been proven repeatedly in this very thread.

Oh please.

Better contact the judiciary and every law school in America.

We can agree to read the constitution differently, and you can choose to ignore Texas V. White, but you don't get the power of fiat.

Especially on an issue this large.

I'm sorry, where did you highlight the part of the Constitution that denies them that right and power?

What? You didn't?

Then they have it


“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It's a very simple matter. Just as anything is legal for a man to do until declared otherwise, the states have the right and authority to do as they please unless it is expressly forbidden. The Fed, on the other hand, can do only that which is expressly allowed.

That's the way our law is written- for good reason.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Not this circle jerk again.

How about you show us the part of the constitution where states are allowed to leave? It's not there and you know it. It is the same for your rhetorical question.

As for your last:

Do you mean to tell me that history is written by the winners? I am shocked by this!

The fact that it is not mentioned in any part gives that right to the states since states have any power that is not already granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to them by the constitution.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you.

It doesn't matter what Scotus says. The Scotus ruling is illegal. It is a political decision only, designed to fuck Texas after the war and attempt to retroactively justify Lincoln's actions. The Constitution is the law, not Socuts, and the Constitution is perfectly clear on this issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wrong. The States have the power to secede and pursue their right to self-determination. This is per the Constitution as has been proven repeatedly in this very thread.

Oh please.

Better contact the judiciary and every law school in America.

We can agree to read the constitution differently, and you can choose to ignore Texas V. White, but you don't get the power of fiat.

Especially on an issue this large.

I'm sorry, where did you highlight the part of the Constitution that denies them that right and power?

What? You didn't?

Then they have it


“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It's a very simple matter. Just as anything is legal for a man to do until declared otherwise, the states have the right and authority to do as they please unless it is expressly forbidden. The Fed, on the other hand, can do only that which is expressly allowed.

That's the way our law is written- for good reason.

Like I said, you are entitled to your own opinion on this matter. You are not entitled to claim fiat.

Of course, you know that.

 

[geauxtohell]

The fact that it is not mentioned in any part gives that right to the states since states have any power that is not already granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to them by the constitution.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you.

It doesn't matter what Scotus says. The Scotus ruling is illegal. It is a political decision only, designed to fuck Texas after the war and attempt to retroactively justify Lincoln's actions. The Constitution is the law, not Socuts, and the Constitution is perfectly clear on this issue.

Of course we have to simply brush aside any inconvenient truths that don't support our agenda.

What other aspects of the law are you simply going to declare "illegal" and ignore?

It's like those idiotic tax protesters who think they can will something into existence.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

 

[geauxtohell]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

Thank you for that completely new talking point. I've never quite heard anything so original.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Adhering to the Constitution is a new concept for you?

 

[geauxtohell]

Adhering to the Constitution is a new concept for you?

Wow. The "no true scotsman" bit.

More originality on your part.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

Let's get specific. The federal income tax is constitutionally supported by a constitutional amendment. If a state seceded, presumably, everyone there would stop paying income tax to the U. S.

How could that possibly be legal, when the Supremacy clause requires compliance to federal law by the states?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

If there is one person, or maybe two who countered this concentration of wealth, it was FDR and LBJ; Reagan, Clinton, and Bush helped bring it back.


Wealth Distribution

The Growing Divide | United for a Fair Economy

You misunderstand both this post, and history.

Capitalism created the middle class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

If there is one person, or maybe two who countered this concentration of wealth, it was FDR and LBJ; Reagan, Clinton, and Bush helped bring it back.


Wealth Distribution

The Growing Divide | United for a Fair Economy

You misunderstand both this post, and history.

Capitalism created the middle class.

Wrong. Laughably wrong.

ha ha

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact that it is not mentioned in any part gives that right to the states since states have any power that is not already granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to them by the constitution.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you.

It doesn't matter what Scotus says. The Scotus ruling is illegal. It is a political decision only, designed to fuck Texas after the war and attempt to retroactively justify Lincoln's actions. The Constitution is the law, not Socuts, and the Constitution is perfectly clear on this issue.

This is where conversations often end up. With absurdity.

Who would be the legal enforcement entity who has the constitutional power to declare a Supreme Court ruling 'illegal'??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Man-oh-man. If only there were some sort of historical event to consider this issue under...

Oh yeah, there is. The Civil War.

Let me guess: Lincoln was a tyrant! The North's actions were illegal! blah, blah, fucking blah.

All while sitting in your cozy little house surfing the cozy little internet in a country where you have an unprecedented amount of freedom.

Yeah, you poor neo-secessionists are so oppressed. At least the South had the tariff to be pissed off about. You guys just have sour grapes over imagined injustices.

At any rate, what is your revolution going to consist of? A proletarian uprising?

I miss the good old days when conservatives claimed Lincoln as their own and took credit for conservatism freeing the slaves. Back when the GOP was the party of Lincoln,

not the party of Jefferson Davis.

Beats the hell out of what the DNC has become. The Party of Benedict Arnold.

Were you the one who was going to tell me who in the DNC is currently in the KKK?

I was so eagerly awaiting that newsflash.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

Let's get specific. The federal income tax is constitutionally supported by a constitutional amendment. If a state seceded, presumably, everyone there would stop paying income tax to the U. S.

How could that possibly be legal, when the Supremacy clause requires compliance to federal law by the states?

Once they secede, genius, they're no longer a member state- the federal laws have as much weight over them as they have over Portugal.