It’s Constitutional

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Odd how Williams (and others here) are claiming Secession is Constitutional but completely fail to mention Texas v White (1868) where the Supreme Court ruled it was not, and do not address any of the arguments raised in it.

dear, a court case does not trump the Constitution. We don't have a national government anyway, only a federal government whose power is granted by the states. So then, if the States wish to secede they certainly can. If they can't the hole Constitutional concept of freedom is a joke.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Odd how Williams (and others here) are claiming Secession is Constitutional but completely fail to mention Texas v White (1868) where the Supreme Court ruled it was not, and do not address any of the arguments raised in it.

dear, a court case does not trump the Constitution. We don't have a national government anyway, only a federal government whose power is granted by the states. So then, if the States wish to secede they certainly can. If they can't the hole Constitutional concept of freedom is a joke.

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what the Constitution says and means. And they ruled that a State may ONLY leave the Union if Congress agrees to let them go.

Thus unilateral leaving is Unconstitutional and is in fact insurrection against the US Government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Odd how Williams (and others here) are claiming Secession is Constitutional but completely fail to mention Texas v White (1868) where the Supreme Court ruled it was not, and do not address any of the arguments raised in it.

dear, a court case does not trump the Constitution. We don't have a national government anyway, only a federal government whose power is granted by the states. So then, if the States wish to secede they certainly can. If they can't the hole Constitutional concept of freedom is a joke.

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what the Constitution says and means. And they ruled that a State may ONLY leave the Union if Congress agrees to let them go.

Thus unilateral leaving is Unconstitutional and is in fact insurrection against the US Government.

as I said a court ruling does not trump the Constitution. Dred Scott was a court decision!! Here's proof: Jefferson said in the Declaration that when a government becomes abusive the people have the right to revolution.

If you deny the people such a basic right to freedom from liberal central government you deny them the very purpose of our Founding documents.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

dear, a court case does not trump the Constitution. We don't have a national government anyway, only a federal government whose power is granted by the states. So then, if the States wish to secede they certainly can. If they can't the hole Constitutional concept of freedom is a joke.

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what the Constitution says and means. And they ruled that a State may ONLY leave the Union if Congress agrees to let them go.

Thus unilateral leaving is Unconstitutional and is in fact insurrection against the US Government.

as I said a court ruling does not trump the Constitution. Dred Scott was a court decision!! Here's proof: Jefferson said in the Declaration that when a government becomes abusive the people have the right to revolution.

If you deny the people such a basic right to freedom from liberal central government you deny them the very purpose of our Founding documents.

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator , you don't like their decision? To damn bad. I don't much like roe vs wade, but it is the law of the land.

You want a State to leave the union? Organize an army and force the US to agree by defeating them in battle. Because legally and Constitutionally you can ONLY leave by force or if Congress agrees.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator , you don't like their decision? To damn bad. I don't much like roe vs wade, but it is the law of the land.

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

You want a State to leave the union? Organize an army and force the US to agree by defeating them in battle. Because legally and Constitutionally you can ONLY leave by force or if Congress agrees.

or if the Court reads the founding documents correctly and then corrects current law

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator , you don't like their decision? To damn bad. I don't much like roe vs wade, but it is the law of the land.

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

You want a State to leave the union? Organize an army and force the US to agree by defeating them in battle. Because legally and Constitutionally you can ONLY leave by force or if Congress agrees.

or if the Court reads the founding documents correctly and then corrects current law

And who determines if the Court is interpreting the Constitution correctly?

Every perception of the Constitution is an interpretation, there is no Constitutional Rosetta Stone, the Framers understood, expected, and accepted the fact that the courts would interpret the Founding Document authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, with the Supreme Court determining its final meaning.

 

[Flanders]

You want a State to leave the union? Organize an army and force the US to agree by defeating them in battle. Because legally and Constitutionally you can ONLY leave by force or if Congress agrees.

To RetiredGySgt: I do not want to turn this thread into a debate about gun controls, but I am so glad you said “Organize an army . . . “.

Government chest-pounders always give the impression they are staunch defenders of the Constitution when it is the government they are defending. Those same chest-pounders are woefully lacking when it comes to defending America’s sovereignty. In fact, they openly support the very people who betray this country to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) every day.

Based on your call for civil war you obviously believe the federal government would win such a conflict makes me wonder if you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution, or if you support the federal government’s unrelenting attempts to abolish gun ownership.

NOTE: REGISTRATION is the final step before confiscation.

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty is the latest attempt to disarm the people you say should organize an army. The federal government supports the ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) as it supports every other United Nations treaty ever written. See this thread for a more detailed discussion:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/232707-small-guns-big-military.html

Hussein “winning” the election changed a few things since I posted that thread. For one thing gun control advocates picked up several Senate seats. As far as I know Hussein is still short of the 67 votes needed to ratify but he is closer. Notice that UN-loving sneaks are trying to disarm the American people by treaty rather than by amending the Constitution.

Finally, the Second Amendment itself reduces the edge government chest-pounders rely on:

Second Amendment Safe—For Now
Joan R. Neubauer Monday, July 30, 2012

Second Amendment Safe—For Now

 

[PratchettFan]

You can copy and paste till the cows come home. No one is seceding.

It's not about secession it's about holding people accountable to govt standards and ethics.
Whoever takes responsibility for redressing grievances, correcting the problems of bad govt, and providing restitution to taxpayers, that's who is going to be in charge.

There was not a single point you made in the post just before this that I had any disagreement with. I do disagree that this thread is not about secession, it is. However, I will again agree with you that it is the responsibility of each citizen to hold their government accountable.

As to who is going to be in charge, I would love to live in a world where you were correct. Unfortunately, I don't think either of us do.

 

[Flanders]

PratchettFan;6426911

Not being a communist, in fact being a real conservative,

To PratchettFan: Nobody who opposes the Right of secession can possibly be a conservative.

PratchettFan;6426911

I would not desire to emigrate.

To PratchettFan: Like I said:

. . . parasites have it so good in this country it would take an act of God to drive them out.

PratchettFan;6426911]

I am not, after all, the one pining to bail out on our country. That would seem to be you.

To PratchettFan: Don’t confuse the country with the federal government. They are separate entities.

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it. Mark Twain

You are loyal to the government. My loyalty to the nation resides in secession from a government that does not deserve loyalty.

PratchettFan;6426911

Otherwise, you are stuck with this horrible democracy where even people who aren't you have a say.

To PratchettFan: Parasites are the only ones who have a say in a democracy. I can understand their love of feeding at the public trough, I cannot understand why they are so smug about it:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan;6426911

Not being a communist, in fact being a real conservative,

To PratchettFan: Nobody who opposes the Right of secession can possibly be a conservative.

PratchettFan;6426911

I would not desire to emigrate.

To PratchettFan: Like I said:




To PratchettFan: Don’t confuse the country with the federal government. They are separate entities.



You are loyal to the government. My loyalty to the nation resides in secession from a government that does not deserve loyalty.

PratchettFan;6426911

Otherwise, you are stuck with this horrible democracy where even people who aren't you have a say.

To PratchettFan: Parasites are the only ones who have a say in a democracy. I can understand their love of feeding at the public trough, I cannot understand why they are so smug about it:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams

Well, then perhaps you would be happier somewhere that people don't believe in freedom or democracy. As I said, you are free to leave.

 

[paperview]

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator , you don't like their decision? To damn bad. I don't much like roe vs wade, but it is the law of the land.

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

 

[Flanders]

Well, then perhaps you would be happier somewhere that people don't believe in freedom or democracy.

To PratchettFan: My, my. How you dearly love blending political oranges and apples as though you are mixing cake batter. First is was country and government, now it’s freedom and democracy. In both instances your ingredients are incompatible.

 

[HUGGY]

The Secession Movement is not getting much coverage in the MSM, but it is alive and well. I’ve read a bunch of articles about secession written by knowledgeable people. Most say there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents secession. In addition to informative background Professor Walter E. Williams sums it up nicely:

What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.

Secession: It's constitutional
Walter E. Williams offers evidence from 18th and 19th century U.S. history
Published: 9 hours ago
by WALTER WILLIAMS

Secession: It’s constitutional

Here’s an entertaining, and informative video to top off the topic:

Secession: American as apple pie

This just in!!!! We have an abundance of wingnuts in America. Crazy is alive and well !!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want a State to leave the union? Organize an army and force the US to agree by defeating them in battle. Because legally and Constitutionally you can ONLY leave by force or if Congress agrees.

To RetiredGySgt: I do not want to turn this thread into a debate about gun controls, but I am so glad you said “Organize an army . . . “.

Government chest-pounders always give the impression they are staunch defenders of the Constitution when it is the government they are defending. Those same chest-pounders are woefully lacking when it comes to defending America’s sovereignty. In fact, they openly support the very people who betray this country to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community) every day.

Based on your call for civil war you obviously believe the federal government would win such a conflict makes me wonder if you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution, or if you support the federal government’s unrelenting attempts to abolish gun ownership.

NOTE: REGISTRATION is the final step before confiscation.

The United Nations Small Arms Treaty is the latest attempt to disarm the people you say should organize an army. The federal government supports the ATT (Arms Trade Treaty) as it supports every other United Nations treaty ever written. See this thread for a more detailed discussion:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/232707-small-guns-big-military.html

Hussein “winning” the election changed a few things since I posted that thread. For one thing gun control advocates picked up several Senate seats. As far as I know Hussein is still short of the 67 votes needed to ratify but he is closer. Notice that UN-loving sneaks are trying to disarm the American people by treaty rather than by amending the Constitution.

Finally, the Second Amendment itself reduces the edge government chest-pounders rely on:

Second Amendment Safe—For Now
Joan R. Neubauer Monday, July 30, 2012

Second Amendment Safe—For Now

You may want to actually get to know the posters here. Making broad sweeping statements usually results in getting it wrong. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Though I have no problem with fully automatic weapons being registered.

I have my ammo and weapons ready in case a need arises to resist. But claiming a State can freely leave the Union is a lie and a foolish statement. It ignores the law and reality.

 

[Flanders]

RetiredGySgt;6430368

You may want to actually get to know the posters here. Making broad sweeping statements usually results in getting it wrong.

To RetiredGySgt: Written responses tell me more than I want to know. The things learned about a person from their written words is more accurate than learning about them by talking to them face to face because the written word can be analyzed; whereas, the spoken word is usually heard once or twice, and is misinterpreted more often than not. Think about the old parlor game. Whisper something to a person; then have that person whisper it to the next person and so on. By the time the last person in the room gets it there is no resemblance to the original statement. Had you passed a note from person to person everybody would have gotten the same words.

RetiredGySgt;6430368

I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Though I have no problem with fully automatic weapons being registered.

I have my ammo and weapons ready in case a need arises to resist.

To RetiredGySgt: Ready to resist what? For the sake of discussion let’s say 25 states secede without the federal government’s approval. Let’s further say that the US military remains neutral.

In a speech on July 2, 2008 then-Senator Obama called for a civilian national security force:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama speech on civilian security force - YouTube

Hussein’s para-military force found its way into the healthcare bill —— renamed the Ready Reserve Corps.

At the same time Hussein & Company work day and night to disarm law-abiding Americans they would use TAX dollars to train and arm a civilian army —— an army loyal to the Socialist agenda —— not loyal to the country, and certainly not loyal to the federal government if it begins to move away from collectivism.

NOTE: As we speak Hussein is determined to cripple the military in the budget battle. Republicans should begin by taking the Ready Reserve Corps out of Hillarycare II if they cannot repeal the whole damn thing.

Hussein and Democrats put the Ready Reserve Corps in the healthcare bill well-knowing secession means that National Guard militia units in seceding states would transfer their allegiance from the federal government to their home state. Hussein & Company knew they could not “. . . rely on our military. . .” to defend the Communist agenda; hence, inserting and disguising a preemptive strike in the healthcare bill before secession became a topic.

A preemptive strike is not as far-fetched as it appears. Years ago, Socialists had to know that violent revolution, or peaceful secession, were inevitable. Planning for either eventuality as the tipping point drew near was logical.

Realistically, a majority of men and women serving in state militias, and in the active armed services for that matter, cannot be relied upon to kill their fellow Americans over peaceful, and constitutional, secession. Now, ask yourself this:

Did Hussein want to achieve HIS national security objectives with a parasite army so they could fight for the Socialist agenda, or fight for the Right of secession, or remain neutral? I think everybody knows the answer.

So are you ready to resist, or assist, Hussein’s parasite army if they try to stop peaceful secession?

RetiredGySgt;6430368

But claiming a State can freely leave the Union is a lie and a foolish statement. It ignores the law and reality.

To RetiredGySgt: Exactly which law is that? Please do not cite Texas v White. The SCOTUS never decided secession in Texas v. White anymore than it settled presidential eligibility in Plessy v. Ferguson. There is no law prohibiting secession until the Constitution is amended saying just that. If prohibiting secession is so settled amending the Constitution should be a simple matter. Apparently, saying secession is prohibited serves just as well.

And do not confuse High Court decisions like Roe v. Wade with secession. Prohibiting secession takes a Right away from states; whereas, Roe v. Wade supposedly gave a Right to the infanticide crowd.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator , you don't like their decision? To damn bad. I don't much like roe vs wade, but it is the law of the land.

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

what freedom do we really have if we cant secede?? We didn't sign declaration?? or agree to Constitution did we??

 

[paperview]

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

what freedom do we really have if we cant secede?? We didn't sign declaration?? or agree to Constitution did we??

Huh?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

what freedom do we really have if we cant secede?? We didn't sign declaration?? or agree to Constitution did we??

Huh?

what freedom do we really have if we cant secede?? We didn't sign declaration?? or agree to Constitution did we??[/

 

[jtpr312]

Here's the facts. NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution, meaning there would have been NO constitution, unless their right to leave said union at their discretion was allowed, and a right granted to one state, in this case the right to secede, is granted to all states by the Constitution. The ONLY thing stopping secession today is the memory of how the fascist federal govt, under the most fascist president we ever had up till obama, illegally invaded, first the Sovereign state of Virginia, then the other peaceful Southern states that had seceded. That memory is getting more and more distant though as the federal govt gets more and more oppressive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here's the facts. NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution, meaning there would have been NO constitution, unless their right to leave said union at their discretion was allowed, and a right granted to one state, in this case the right to secede, is granted to all states by the Constitution. The ONLY thing stopping secession today is the memory of how the fascist federal govt, under the most fascist president we ever had up till obama, illegally invaded, first the Sovereign state of Virginia, then the other peaceful Southern states that had seceded. That memory is getting more and more distant though as the federal govt gets more and more oppressive.

yes they want us to assume they are our masters and, in the end, we have no right to freedom from them.

This is why Jefferson wanted a revolution every 20 years, he knew the liberals would build central government and destroy freedom.