Free Country News: Feds raid Texas secessionist meeting

[PaintMyHouse]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

A true American plays by the rules and obeys the laws set forth in the Constitution. This administration and the Democratic Party have abused their power and rendered the Constitution null and void.

What a drama queen you are...

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm talking law, and what the law says. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways the courts can't come after them but no, as long as they remain within the confines of written law there's nothing to legally go after them for. That's how a lot of these "organizations" get away with what they claim.
If they continue to pay their taxes, abide by legal mandates, etc they are not "technically" in rebellion.

-They declare the power to coin money (that power belongs to Congress per the constitution).
-They attempt to exercise sovereignty by convening an alternative government.
-They attempt to execute court summons.
-They attempt to hold bankruptcy proceedings (that power belongs to the federal government, per the constitution).

All this is within the "confines" of written law? None of this is an act of rebellion? You really mean to tell me that the power of the government to lay down rebellions doesn't apply as long as it's a "peaceful" rebellion? Or as long as the government doesn't lose money?

LOL!

SO WHAT?

is their coin worth anything? No...

Every American is a free sovereign.

I execute court summons' all the time... and sooner or later, someone will show up.

LOL! Bankruptcy proceeding?

Again... SO FUCKIN' WHAT?

It's MEANINGLESS... It's no different than two sexual deviant males, pretending to be married to one another. It doesn't change anything.

Who gives a dam', except and until they start demanding that the LAW must be changed and they find sufficient illicil means to change such. At THAT point... they bring war to the US, to shut that nonsense down.

Have you taken your medicine yet?

 

[guno]

thankfully the feds might have stopped another white christian terrorist attack on American soil

 

[SwimExpert]

By law if someone is not advocating the use of force or violence to overthrow the Federal government, any local, county or state government he/she/they are withing their rights as protected by the First Amendment however if they are participating in other actions that are illegal then it's a whole nother story.

This is a group that sees the United States as an illegitimate government over Texas, and that they are the rightful government exercising sovereignty over the land. The meeting raided was what they call their Congress.

I can claim my property is a country unto itself and claim it's so because I have never sworn allegiance to the United States (I have) or the locality, county and state it resides in. Doesn't make my claim legal.

When you attempt or portend to usurp the sovereignty of the land away from the United States, you are committing an act of rebellion against the sovereignty of the nation.

Secession is not "usurping the sovereignty of the land." States have the right to secede. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it.

This "group" contends to be the legitimate government of a country they call the Republic of Texas, which they claim is the same Republic of Texas that became defunct in the 19th century. They have a President, a Congress, and a judiciary. They attempt to exercise sovereign power (this raid was initiated after they attempted to hold bankruptcy proceedings and attempted to summon someone, who then took the fraudulent court documents to police). As their website says:

There is no need for the republic of Texas to seced from the United States. We never "ceded" the land of Texas to them or to anyone else.

Proclamation

Of course they are not the legitimate government of Texas, but that's a separate issue. They made no attempt to "exercise sovereign power." They sent no police or armed thugs to impose their proclamations. Their documents had no legal force. That's about the extent of their so-called "crime," and they weren't prosecuted for anything.

As I predicted, you've retreated to your "I-hate-America" default setting. Go **** yourself somewhere else if you hate this country so much.

 

[Ringel05]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

Depends on how one defines "Liberal".........

That's not difficult. Find one who goes with this, to the death.


liberalism
noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Well there's one definition. Maybe I should have asked which form of Liberalism........ Classical, Neoliberalism, Social Liberalism, Modern-social, etc.......

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

Depends on how one defines "Liberal".........

That's not difficult. Find one who goes with this, to the death.


liberalism
noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Well there's one definition. Maybe I should have asked which form of Liberalism........ Classical, Neoliberalism, Social Liberalism, Modern-social, etc.......

The right tool for the right job.

 

[SwimExpert]

". . . in TX you can't have your property seized, like cell phones or be fingerprinted or photographed except subsequent to arrest." Of course such can be taken then returned without arrest

Sure if done so on the spot, you can't download the contents without a warrant, and that warrant has to specify exactly what they are looking for. Tell me, how do they get a warrant for all the devices of 60+ unknown individuals, they had no advanced information of who would be attending the meeting.

Sure, they can, you show you do not know how the law works.

I know how the fourth amendment works and how courts have disallowed discovery gathered by such broad, non-specific warrants.

Warrants must be particular in that they must describe the place to be searched, what is being searched for, and the types of things that are desired to be searched. This does not mean that warrants must be individual. A single warrant can validly permit a search for a given address, and include that "all people" and "vehicles" located at the address, and can also specify that "all electronic storage devices" be searched, so long as there is a rational reason for including these in the search.

For example, if a group of people are suspected of forming a NAMBLA club and meeting tomorrow night at 6pm at a warehouse for a swap meet of digital and hard copies of child pornography, a single warrant can authorize the search of all individuals, their phones, all computers, and all vehicles present at the address at the time of the search.

 

[Ringel05]

You are missing the point, obviously. If they were considered in open rebellion don't you think they'd be in jail right now? You're supposed to have a brain, use it.

You seem hung up on violence being the metric here, and I just don't see any justification for that. If half the states in the country decided to declare themselves not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, do they have to actually resort to violence before the United States takes action? If that's your position, than any state can secede any time it wants, and nobody can stop them as long as they do it peacefully. Hell, I can declare my house an independent nation, and the United States has to simply agree as long as I don't resort to violence.

As far as I can see, these people are in open rebellion. Just because they haven't resorted to violence does not change the fact. They are holding an alternate government and claiming sovereignty over territory that is sovereign United States territory. They are attempting to perform inherently governmental functions, including the convening of courts and summoning people under the jurisdiction of the United States to appear before said courts, as if the jurisdiction of the United States were nonexistent. If that does not meet the description of being against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, then what is?

The government has the power to suppress rebellions. It has the power to investigate suspected cases of rebellion. I'm not sure why you are demanding that violence has to happen before the government can even investigate.

You seem to think the US needs to "simply agree", that's where your fallacy lies. I never said that, you inferred it.
Besides, it doesn't matter how you personally see it, what's important here is the LAW, not your feeling on the matter.

 

[Ringel05]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

Depends on how one defines "Liberal".........

That's not difficult. Find one who goes with this, to the death.


liberalism
noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Well there's one definition. Maybe I should have asked which form of Liberalism........ Classical, Neoliberalism, Social Liberalism, Modern-social, etc.......

The right tool for the right job.

Interesting. I taking a leap of faith and assuming you know what each form I listed represents.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm talking law, and what the law says. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways the courts can't come after them but no, as long as they remain within the confines of written law there's nothing to legally go after them for. That's how a lot of these "organizations" get away with what they claim.
If they continue to pay their taxes, abide by legal mandates, etc they are not "technically" in rebellion.

-They declare the power to coin money (that power belongs to Congress per the constitution).
-They attempt to exercise sovereignty by convening an alternative government.
-They attempt to execute court summons.
-They attempt to hold bankruptcy proceedings (that power belongs to the federal government, per the constitution).

All this is within the "confines" of written law? None of this is an act of rebellion? You really mean to tell me that the power of the government to lay down rebellions doesn't apply as long as it's a "peaceful" rebellion? Or as long as the government doesn't lose money?

If the government doesn't respect the shackles of the Constitution, why should its subjects...oops...people?

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

The federal government isn't fixable, so you're saying that a true American is a gullible moron. Liberals are traitors, not true Americans. Obama and the Democrats in Congress prove that every day.

 

[Ringel05]

I think it's hysterically funny how some champion the secession of certain states because they disagree with national politics and some who support that secession because they disagree with the politics within those individual states........ and both sides claim to be true Americans.......

A true American wants to fix things, not leave their nation. A true American is also a liberal, since it's a liberal nation.

The federal government isn't fixable, so you're saying that a true American is a gullible moron. Liberals are traitors, not true Americans. Obama and the Democrats in Congress prove that every day.

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night........

 

[bripat9643]

You are missing the point, obviously. If they were considered in open rebellion don't you think they'd be in jail right now? You're supposed to have a brain, use it.

You seem hung up on violence being the metric here, and I just don't see any justification for that. If half the states in the country decided to declare themselves not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, do they have to actually resort to violence before the United States takes action? If that's your position, than any state can secede any time it wants, and nobody can stop them as long as they do it peacefully. Hell, I can declare my house an independent nation, and the United States has to simply agree as long as I don't resort to violence..

I agree that any state can secede anytime it wants. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it.

As far as I can see, these people are in open rebellion. Just because they haven't resorted to violence does not change the fact. They are holding an alternate government and claiming sovereignty over territory that is sovereign United States territory. They are attempting to perform inherently governmental functions, including the convening of courts and summoning people under the jurisdiction of the United States to appear before said courts, as if the jurisdiction of the United States were nonexistent. If that does not meet the description of being against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, then what is?.

Where does the Constitution use that expression?

The government has the power to suppress rebellions. It has the power to investigate suspected cases of rebellion. I'm not sure why you are demanding that violence has to happen before the government can even investigate.

Secession is not rebellion, so your entire post is a non sequitur. Simply talking about secession is certainly not rebellion. it's speech protected by the First Amendment.

You're a boot-licking government toady.

 

[SwimExpert]

Personally, I have no problem with Texas leaving the union. However the US government will have to be paid proper compensation for all US government land, buildings and infrastructure that are in Texas. They can't just keep US military bases. They need to pay for them. They just can't keep all the NASA facilities, they need to pay for them. If they want to keep those federally funded interstate freeways, they need to pay for them.

I would say that what they really need to do is to pay the government that state's portion of the public debt, being an amount proportionate to the proportion of the US population comprising the state. Never bothered to consider the US evacuating military facilities. After all, we have military bases in other countries.

By my calculations, Texas will need to pony up $1,659,369,165,360 ($1.7 trillion) to cover their share.

I agree they should pay their portion of the public debt that was acquired while they were a part of the United States.

I might go even farther and make them pay interest too.

That's true that we have military bases in other nations. If our military bases were left in place those bases would be part of the United States.

There ya go. Drive the girlfriend away with your abuse, then make her pay you back for all those dinners you paid for so you could get in her pants.

So you're made into a victim by living in the United States? Jesus Christ...

 

[bripat9643]

By law if someone is not advocating the use of force or violence to overthrow the Federal government, any local, county or state government he/she/they are withing their rights as protected by the First Amendment however if they are participating in other actions that are illegal then it's a whole nother story.

This is a group that sees the United States as an illegitimate government over Texas, and that they are the rightful government exercising sovereignty over the land. The meeting raided was what they call their Congress.

I can claim my property is a country unto itself and claim it's so because I have never sworn allegiance to the United States (I have) or the locality, county and state it resides in. Doesn't make my claim legal.

When you attempt or portend to usurp the sovereignty of the land away from the United States, you are committing an act of rebellion against the sovereignty of the nation.

Secession is not "usurping the sovereignty of the land." States have the right to secede. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it.

This "group" contends to be the legitimate government of a country they call the Republic of Texas, which they claim is the same Republic of Texas that became defunct in the 19th century. They have a President, a Congress, and a judiciary. They attempt to exercise sovereign power (this raid was initiated after they attempted to hold bankruptcy proceedings and attempted to summon someone, who then took the fraudulent court documents to police). As their website says:

There is no need for the republic of Texas to seced from the United States. We never "ceded" the land of Texas to them or to anyone else.

Proclamation

Of course they are not the legitimate government of Texas, but that's a separate issue. They made no attempt to "exercise sovereign power." They sent no police or armed thugs to impose their proclamations. Their documents had no legal force. That's about the extent of their so-called "crime," and they weren't prosecuted for anything.

As I predicted, you've retreated to your "I-hate-America" default setting. Go **** yourself somewhere else if you hate this country so much.

The "I-hate-America default setting" is a euphemism you coined for "nothing but the facts, mam.

You go **** yourself. I wasn't born a slave. I'm not the property of the federal government, as servile toadies like you would have me believe.

 

[OKTexas]

". . . in TX you can't have your property seized, like cell phones or be fingerprinted or photographed except subsequent to arrest." Of course such can be taken then returned without arrest

Sure if done so on the spot, you can't download the contents without a warrant, and that warrant has to specify exactly what they are looking for. Tell me, how do they get a warrant for all the devices of 60+ unknown individuals, they had no advanced information of who would be attending the meeting.

Sure, they can, you show you do not know how the law works.

I know how the fourth amendment works and how courts have disallowed discovery gathered by such broad, non-specific warrants.

Warrants must be particular in that they must describe the place to be searched, what is being searched for, and the types of things that are desired to be searched. This does not mean that warrants must be individual. A single warrant can validly permit a search for a given address, and include that "all people" and "vehicles" located at the address, and can also specify that "all electronic storage devices" be searched, so long as there is a rational reason for including these in the search.

For example, if a group of people are suspected of forming a NAMBLA club and meeting tomorrow night at 6pm at a warehouse for a swap meet of digital and hard copies of child pornography, a single warrant can authorize the search of all individuals, their phones, all computers, and all vehicles present at the address at the time of the search.

Your forgetting one thing, this meeting was open to the public only about 20 of those attending were members of the organization. They didn't limit their search to just the members. Using your standard there could have been 50,000 there and all would be subject to the warrant.

 

[SwimExpert]

You seem to think the US needs to "simply agree", that's where your fallacy lies. I never said that, you inferred it.

No, that's exactly what you're saying. According to you the government has no power to do anything until the newly independent countries become violent. Pretty silly.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There actually is a Constitution method of secession.

Article IV, Section 3

.... but no new State 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.

All the counties of a State could convene to expel themselves out of the State, leaving only one township in the original State. So all the Counties of New York could leave New York, and as long as one township remains "New York," New York would still be in the Union and the new counties would be OUTSIDE its Jurisdiction.

 

[bripat9643]

Personally, I have no problem with Texas leaving the union. However the US government will have to be paid proper compensation for all US government land, buildings and infrastructure that are in Texas. They can't just keep US military bases. They need to pay for them. They just can't keep all the NASA facilities, they need to pay for them. If they want to keep those federally funded interstate freeways, they need to pay for them.

I would say that what they really need to do is to pay the government that state's portion of the public debt, being an amount proportionate to the proportion of the US population comprising the state. Never bothered to consider the US evacuating military facilities. After all, we have military bases in other countries.

By my calculations, Texas will need to pony up $1,659,369,165,360 ($1.7 trillion) to cover their share.

I agree they should pay their portion of the public debt that was acquired while they were a part of the United States.

I might go even farther and make them pay interest too.

That's true that we have military bases in other nations. If our military bases were left in place those bases would be part of the United States.

There ya go. Drive the girlfriend away with your abuse, then make her pay you back for all those dinners you paid for so you could get in her pants.

So you're made into a victim by living in the United States? Jesus Christ...

No, he's made victim by our oppressive federal government that treats him like a piece of property to be used for whatever purpose it deems fit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist, bripat, 2dAmendment, S. J., etc., are the horse shit brigade because that is what they are shoveling in this and other threads.

Living in the USA is not a burden, folks.