Vote Poll. Obama vs. Rick Perry

[ShackledNation]

Neither secession nor interposition are constitutional rights of the states. We the People approved the Constitution, the states acting only as our agents. Once ratified, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land and the individual sovereignty of the states ended. Lincoln killed literally the CSA when several states got to big for their britches.

That is absolutely false and completely dishonest. The people are sovereign, not the federal government. The founders clearly stated the importance of states rights. We have a FEDERAL SYSTEM, which means powers are divided between states and the federal government. There is a reason our states are called states and not provinces. When the Constitution was ratified, there was a union of these states under a central government, but the states remained a large amount of power over said government. The reason was because the states more directly represented the people. States were given the power to check this government through the Senate (a power since removed by the progressives). States also had the power of secession and nullification, which courts unconstitutionally ruled prohibit.

Nowhere in the Constitution is secession or interposition prohibited. All powers not delegated to the Constitution are left to the states or to the people. The powers in the Constitution granted to the federal government are the powers the states gave up. Powers prohibited to the states are also no longer theirs. Secession and interposition are obviously not powers of the central government, nor were they prohibited. According to the 10th amendment, the states retain that power.

 

[ShackledNation]

Against secession?

Then why flirt with it?

And if you don't think that will come up in the general to bite him in the ass..there are some nice bridges in brooklyn I'd like to sell ya.

Cheap.

He favors the right to secede, but said himself that he did not advocate the secession of Texas. I believe people should have the right to smoke marijuana despite advising against it myself.

I hope it comes up. The right to secession coupled with interposition are two of the most important states rights.

Those "rights" aren't recognized by the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

 

[Sallow]

Neither secession nor interposition are constitutional rights of the states. We the People approved the Constitution, the states acting only as our agents. Once ratified, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land and the individual sovereignty of the states ended. Lincoln killed literally the CSA when several states got to big for their britches.

That is absolutely false and completely dishonest. The people are sovereign, not the federal government. The founders clearly stated the importance of states rights. We have a FEDERAL SYSTEM, which means powers are divided between states and the federal government. There is a reason our states are called states and not provinces. When the Constitution was ratified, there was a union of these states under a central government, but the states remained a large amount of power over said government. The reason was because the states more directly represented the people. States were given the power to check this government through the Senate (a power since removed by the progressives). States also had the power of secession and nullification, which courts unconstitutionally ruled prohibit.

Nowhere in the Constitution is secession or interposition prohibited. All powers not delegated to the Constitution are left to the states or to the people. The powers in the Constitution granted to the federal government are the powers the states gave up. Powers prohibited to the states are also no longer theirs. Secession and interposition are obviously not powers of the central government, nor were they prohibited. According to the 10th amendment, the states retain that power.

Oh sure they are..and specifically..

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[Sallow]

He favors the right to secede, but said himself that he did not advocate the secession of Texas. I believe people should have the right to smoke marijuana despite advising against it myself.

I hope it comes up. The right to secession coupled with interposition are two of the most important states rights.

Those "rights" aren't recognized by the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

See above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He favors the right to secede, but said himself that he did not advocate the secession of Texas. I believe people should have the right to smoke marijuana despite advising against it myself.

I hope it comes up. The right to secession coupled with interposition are two of the most important states rights.

Those "rights" aren't recognized by the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

Now, you are a loose constructionist? Oh, hypocrisy, your name is schackle_witless.

 

[ShackledNation]

Those "rights" aren't recognized by the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

See above.

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

See above.

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

Shackle_witless, your opinion is not evidence, merely only what you (wrongly) believe. Show us in law where your opinion is supported.

John C. Calhoun tried that argument and got laughed out of the Senate.

 

[ShackledNation]

Those "rights" aren't recognized by the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

Now, you are a loose constructionist? Oh, hypocrisy, your name is schackle_witless.

Time to look at the 10th amendment.

"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."

The Constitution delegates certain federal powers and prohibits certain state powers. Secession and interposition are not delegated or prohibited, so they are powers of the states or the people.

Loose constructionist? Lol. Apparently you have no idea what the Constitution means.

 

[ShackledNation]

See above.

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

Shackle_witless, your opinion is not evidence, merely only what you (wrongly) believe. Show us in law where your opinion is supported.

John C. Calhoun tried that argument and got laughed out of the Senate.

In law? The 10th amendment, part of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. So far you have provided no Constitutional prohibition of secession or interposition. My evidence is the Constitution. Now cut the ad hominem and provide an actual argument.

 

[Sallow]

Yes they are. Point where the states are prohibited the right to secede and interpose in the Constitution.

See above.

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

It's pretty clear.

I can only show you the clauses...it's up to you to actually read them.

Of course if you want to get into this "exact words" bullshit..I can tell you right now..that's not how the law..or the Constitution works.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

Shackle_witless, your opinion is not evidence, merely only what you (wrongly) believe. Show us in law where your opinion is supported.

John C. Calhoun tried that argument and got laughed out of the Senate.

In law? The 10th amendment, part of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. So far you have provided no Constitutional prohibition of secession or interposition. My evidence is the Constitution. Now cut the ad hominem and provide an actual argument.

You, who loves ad hom, lectures me. Forgive while I laugh. OK, I am done. You have provided no argument, only your opinion. Your opinion of the 10th is not evidence, son. It is worthless. It means nothing other than you believe that. Who the fuck cares? Give us something worthwhile.

 

[ShackledNation]

See above.

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

It's pretty clear.

I can only show you the clauses...it's up to you to actually read them.

Of course if you want to get into this "exact words" bullshit..I can tell you right now..that's not how the law..or the Constitution works.

You are something else. You cannot explain why what you gave me proves your point. It doesn't.

Article I Section 8 has nothing to do with secession or interposition.

Section 10 says no state may enter into a confederation, not that a state cannot secede or nullify law. (after a state secedes, it will no longer be part of the union, so it will no longer have to follow the Constitution. A state may not remain part of the union and make alliances with another union as well).

Treason has nothing to do with nullification or secession, because treason is defined is giving aid to enemies or declaring war on the United States.

The supremacy clause states the Constitution trumps state law contrary to it, which is correct. But the Constitution does not prohibit nullification or secession, so states supporting such policies are not violating the supremacy clause.

You are simply incorrect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(edit), Shackeled, it has been explained why you are not an authority, why your opinion is not evidence..

You don't like it, fine, but you don't have a case because your opinion is not evidence.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackle_witless, your opinion is not evidence, merely only what you (wrongly) believe. Show us in law where your opinion is supported.

John C. Calhoun tried that argument and got laughed out of the Senate.

In law? The 10th amendment, part of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. So far you have provided no Constitutional prohibition of secession or interposition. My evidence is the Constitution. Now cut the ad hominem and provide an actual argument.

You, who loves ad hom, lectures me. Forgive while I laugh. OK, I am done. You have provided no argument, only your opinion. Your opinion of the 10th is not evidence, son. It is worthless. It means nothing other than you believe that. Who the fuck cares? Give us something worthwhile.

My opinion of the 10th? I quoted it directly. Exactly how is a quote opinion? All powers not delegated to the states or prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the states. It is a pretty simple statement to comprehend, and it is quite clear.

I do not love ad hominem. And now you are using the tu quoque fallacy to justify your own ad hominem. Even if I did use ad hominem, you are still incorrect in using ad hominem towards me. You are done before providing any argument other than "you are wrong." You say my opinion is just opinion, despite the fact that I quote the actual document that is the Constitution. You want to leave? Suit yourself. I already know you can only defend your position with ad hominem and tu quoque.

 

[ShackledNation]

(edit), Shackeled, it has been explained why you are not an authority, why your opinion is not evidence..

You don't like it, fine, but you don't have a case because your opinion is not evidence.

I showed you in law where my opinion is supported, simple as that. All you can do is respond with insults and arrogance as if your opinion is evidence.

The tenth amendment is very clear. The Constitution delegates certain federal powers and prohibits certain state powers. All powers not delegated or prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and the people. That is not opinion, that is irrefutable fact. If you want to prove that secession and interposition are not state rights, it is necessary to point out where they are prohibited to the states in the Constitution and provide reason for why. You have not, so am am simply waiting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you say so, Shackled, then I give in and give you the benefit of the doubt. You are as pure as driven snow.

So let's try it this way. Show us in case law and precedent that follows your interpretation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. If your point is valid, then you should be able to provide something.

 

[Sallow]

Specifically and you listed all of that for me to read? And no, I see nowhere in that quote of the Constitution that says states cannot secede or interpose. Apparently you didn't either, which is why you quoted the entire article.

It's pretty clear.

I can only show you the clauses...it's up to you to actually read them.

Of course if you want to get into this "exact words" bullshit..I can tell you right now..that's not how the law..or the Constitution works.

You are something else. You cannot explain why what you gave me proves your point. It doesn't.

Article I Section 8 has nothing to do with secession or interposition.

Section 10 says no state may enter into a confederation, not that a state cannot secede or nullify law. (after a state secedes, it will no longer be part of the union, so it will no longer have to follow the Constitution. A state may not remain part of the union and make alliances with another union as well).

Treason has nothing to do with nullification or secession, because treason is defined is giving aid to enemies or declaring war on the United States.

The supremacy clause states the Constitution trumps state law contrary to it, which is correct. But the Constitution does not prohibit nullification or secession, so states supporting such policies are not violating the supremacy clause.

You are simply incorrect.

Explain what?

Look at what I posted.

There are prohibitions to the states.

This was all settled during the civil war as well.

 

[Richard-H]

Regardless of it's constitutionality, I really, really wish that the red states would leave the union. I think that this would be a much better country if they did.

 

[ShackledNation]

It's pretty clear.

I can only show you the clauses...it's up to you to actually read them.

Of course if you want to get into this "exact words" bullshit..I can tell you right now..that's not how the law..or the Constitution works.

You are something else. You cannot explain why what you gave me proves your point. It doesn't.

Article I Section 8 has nothing to do with secession or interposition.

Section 10 says no state may enter into a confederation, not that a state cannot secede or nullify law. (after a state secedes, it will no longer be part of the union, so it will no longer have to follow the Constitution. A state may not remain part of the union and make alliances with another union as well).

Treason has nothing to do with nullification or secession, because treason is defined is giving aid to enemies or declaring war on the United States.

The supremacy clause states the Constitution trumps state law contrary to it, which is correct. But the Constitution does not prohibit nullification or secession, so states supporting such policies are not violating the supremacy clause.

You are simply incorrect.

Explain what?

Look at what I posted.

There are prohibitions to the states.

This was all settled during the civil war as well.

Very good. There are prohibitions to the states. But as I demonstrated, secession and interposition are not prohibited. Somehow you think they are, which is what you need to explain.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This Poll is not fair. Because everyone knows Democrats Vote more than once. So those 16 Votes for Obama are more like 8 or less. This Poll is rigged. I demand a Re-Count!