It’s Constitutional

[PratchettFan]

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

Dear Flanders and PrachettFan:
May I offer some very "rough" analogies here to drive the point home.
Please forgive me if these are a bit over the top.

1. If, for example, people are working more and more days out of the year to pay the government for taxes, then we are basically enslaved by "not reaping the benefit of that labor" that is going to pay authorities who have legal requirements over these payments. So the closer the tax rate gets to 40%, then we are basically 60% free citizens.
Isn't that "roughly" the same as being "3/5 free" as it was in the days of slavery?

2. If defenders of the health care mandates argue that forcing nonusers to pay for the insurance or govt services (even if they prefer and believe in paying for health care privately WITHOUT going through insurance or govt) is the "only way to afford" the system, how is this different from the notion that SLAVERY was "necessary as the only way to afford" the labor to work the plantations and build the economy.

In both cases, the "letter of the law" makes it "legal" for govt to endorse the institution, and even use govt and laws to defend and protect the interests of those who support it.

But by the spirit of the law, the people who do not feel they have free choice are being forced to work to pay the extra cost for things they did not ask to use and should be free to pay for another way that respects their free will.

How is this different from 'involuntary servitude' if people do not consent to work to pay for the benefits of others against their will???

People normally AGREE to pay taxes for military or other govt functions, services and costs.

Here, people do NOT agree to work to pay an extra 1500 that does not go into a system they agree to pay for, but precludes them from paying that money into some other way of affording health care under a system by which they can control the services and useage.

Sorry if this is too extreme or too far a stretch to use as a fair analogy.

Can you at least see the similarity in why people are outraged they would
be forced to pay through a system they don't believe in for insurance or services
for others when they would rather pay for their own health care directly in other ways?

I see your argument. However, the solution for anything like this is the ballot box.

Yes, I think you stretch your analogy too far. In the case of involuntary servitude, it is a one way street. Not so with the things you talk about. I live and earn my living in this society. If this society goes down the tubes, I go with it. So I am not just an solitary individual living off my wits. I am a member of the society and I am obligated to support that society.

Plagues are not good for our society, and thus are not good for me. Large segments of our society which have no access to medical care constitute a health hazard. They increase the potential for plagues. One of the purposes of the government is to see the health and welfare of its people. However, just telling those folks that they can go to an ER if they get sick means that our ERs are jammed all of the time and the cost of an actual emergency is astronomical.

So what would you suggest? We just let them die in the gutter? Should you then have to pay for their body removal, because it isn't your body? At what point do you see paying for the benefit of the society which allows you to live so well is acceptable? How close does the service have to be to you? Afterall, you may not use the highways in Idaho, but do you eat potatoes?

 

[jillian]

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

Dear Flanders and PrachettFan:
May I offer some very "rough" analogies here to drive the point home.
Please forgive me if these are a bit over the top.

1. If, for example, people are working more and more days out of the year to pay the government for taxes, then we are basically enslaved by "not reaping the benefit of that labor" that is going to pay authorities who have legal requirements over these payments. So the closer the tax rate gets to 40%, then we are basically 60% free citizens.
Isn't that "roughly" the same as being "3/5 free" as it was in the days of slavery?

2. If defenders of the health care mandates argue that forcing nonusers to pay for the insurance or govt services (even if they prefer and believe in paying for health care privately WITHOUT going through insurance or govt) is the "only way to afford" the system, how is this different from the notion that SLAVERY was "necessary as the only way to afford" the labor to work the plantations and build the economy.

In both cases, the "letter of the law" makes it "legal" for govt to endorse the institution, and even use govt and laws to defend and protect the interests of those who support it.

But by the spirit of the law, the people who do not feel they have free choice are being forced to work to pay the extra cost for things they did not ask to use and should be free to pay for another way that respects their free will.

How is this different from 'involuntary servitude' if people do not consent to work to pay for the benefits of others against their will???

People normally AGREE to pay taxes for military or other govt functions, services and costs.

Here, people do NOT agree to work to pay an extra 1500 that does not go into a system they agree to pay for, but precludes them from paying that money into some other way of affording health care under a system by which they can control the services and useage.

Sorry if this is too extreme or too far a stretch to use as a fair analogy.

Can you at least see the similarity in why people are outraged they would
be forced to pay through a system they don't believe in for insurance or services
for others when they would rather pay for their own health care directly in other ways?

no one is being forced to work more to pay the government.

tax rates are lower now than at any point in this century.

nor are you working longer hours compared to the beginning of this century... because unions made sure that workers couldn't be forced to work limitless hours, for very little money and in unsafe, deplorable conditions.

history and context are important.

and once again...reality about the nature of our union is probably important.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no one is being forced to work more to pay the government.

tax rates are lower now than at any point in this century.

of course that is perectly stupid and 1000% liberal. Bush started at $2trillion in spending and just few years later Obozo is close to $4 trillion. Dear, thats $32,000 for every family in America!! And that does not include state and local government which would double it!!

We are all slaves to government theft. As the perfect example, Social Security takes 15% of our life time income which if invested in private accounts would make us all rich at retirement with an estate of $1.4 million. But, thanks to liberal SS we get back dog food money if we live long enough to collect any of it!!

PLease don't even try to respond, as a liberal it's way too far over your brainwashed head!!

 

[Flanders]

PratchettFan;6437498

Thank you for your marvelous evidence in support of the part you decided not to quote from my post.

To pratchettFan: And thank you for quoting my entire response.

To pratchettFan: Liberal talking points about the lunatic fringe works for standup comics. It does not work so well for uninformed bumpkins trying to sound politically astute. Making secession a hippie issue is more ludicrous than trying to make it about race.

None of your misdirection changes the true ingredients for revolution. The unrest in this country is about individual liberties, working for one’s self, private property Rights, the Constitution, and so on —— the very things the parasite class took away from private sector Americans. Those are the things Americans want back.

PratchettFan;6437498

Personally, I prefer reality.

To pratchettFan: Then try this:

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

middle class (noun)

The members of society occupying a socioeconomic position intermediate between those of the lower working classes and the wealthy.

Since you cannot see a hyphen in a spoken word —— when Hussein says middle class he also means he would replace the middle-class with the tax collector’s morality:

middle-class (adjective)

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the middle class; bourgeois: middle-class taste; middle-class morality

NOTE: Newspapers articles use both the noun and the adjective.

Yes, yes, yes. I get what you are saying but you missed the most important thing I said. I prefer reality. Expanding upon your wet dream for me doesn't change its basic nature.

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

To PratchettFan: Keep waiting. You’re jumping ahead to make your case. Petitions come first. It will take a while to move to the next step. I’m certain Hussein & Company will unintentionally speed up the process.

 

[Flanders]

I totally sympathize with people who feel that Judge Roberts, for example, or the SC ruling granting Bush's re-election after FL was contested, both made unethical politically biased decisions outside the bounds of Constitutional law and authority.

To emilynghiem: Roberts’ decision was within the bounds of Constitutional authority. His decision was terrible and probably politically motivated.

It was Al Gore, not Bush, who asked the Supreme Court to take the case. Move the cursor to 9:45 for the bit about Gore v. Bush:

Justice Scalia On Life Part 1 - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Here’s part two for those who enjoy Scalia:

Justice Scalia On Life Part 2 - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

Dear Flanders and PrachettFan:
May I offer some very "rough" analogies here to drive the point home.
Please forgive me if these are a bit over the top.

1. If, for example, people are working more and more days out of the year to pay the government for taxes, then we are basically enslaved by "not reaping the benefit of that labor" that is going to pay authorities who have legal requirements over these payments. So the closer the tax rate gets to 40%, then we are basically 60% free citizens.
Isn't that "roughly" the same as being "3/5 free" as it was in the days of slavery?

2. If defenders of the health care mandates argue that forcing nonusers to pay for the insurance or govt services (even if they prefer and believe in paying for health care privately WITHOUT going through insurance or govt) is the "only way to afford" the system, how is this different from the notion that SLAVERY was "necessary as the only way to afford" the labor to work the plantations and build the economy.

In both cases, the "letter of the law" makes it "legal" for govt to endorse the institution, and even use govt and laws to defend and protect the interests of those who support it.

But by the spirit of the law, the people who do not feel they have free choice are being forced to work to pay the extra cost for things they did not ask to use and should be free to pay for another way that respects their free will.

How is this different from 'involuntary servitude' if people do not consent to work to pay for the benefits of others against their will???

People normally AGREE to pay taxes for military or other govt functions, services and costs.

Here, people do NOT agree to work to pay an extra 1500 that does not go into a system they agree to pay for, but precludes them from paying that money into some other way of affording health care under a system by which they can control the services and useage.

Sorry if this is too extreme or too far a stretch to use as a fair analogy.

Can you at least see the similarity in why people are outraged they would
be forced to pay through a system they don't believe in for insurance or services
for others when they would rather pay for their own health care directly in other ways?

To emilynghiem: I like your analogy and agree with your analysis. I used to say it this way:

In the real world taxes are usually referred to in percentages. The Ministry of Propaganda converts labor to money then reduces labor to an abstract even further by talking percentages: Let’s increase taxes by 2% or 20%. The percentage amount doesn’t matter to the Socialists who will not do the work taxes come from anyway.

Sometimes they are forced to talk dollars: The worker earning twenty-five thousand a year will be required to pay a tax increase amounting to ninety-nine dollars a year. Whether we use dollars or percentages, let’s reverse the formula and see where it leads us.

Take an employee who goes to a job forty-eight weeks of every year. To arrive at forty-eight weeks I allowed for two weeks of vacation, and a generous ten paid holidays. (Most lower income employees only get five, six, or seven holidays a year.) Now let’s reduce 48 weeks into the number of days actually worked:

7 x 48 weeks = 336 days. Now deduct Saturdays & Sundays.

336 minus 96 days = 240 days of actual labor.

NOTE: My totals do not include sick days, emergencies, etc. but the numbers are close enough for me to make my point without getting lost in minutia.

Now let’s discuss taxes in terms of labor instead of talking about an abstract percentage.

Approximately 110 days of actual labor each year goes to pay taxes of one kind or another. Tax watchdog groups, less generous than I, say that a worker toils to pay taxes for the first five and half months of each year. No matter how we do the math, it’s slavery whether you break it down into days or months.

Now that we are thinking about taxes in terms of labor, let’s word a proposed tax increase this way:

The government only wants to enslave you for five more days. Now you will work for your Socialist masters 115 days a year instead of 110. A politician preaching tax reduction can then say: I want to give everyone five more days of freedom to work for themselves. Under my plan an individual will only work for socialism 105 days a year. (Don’t hold your breath until elected officials talk taxes in those terms.)

Wage-earners at the low end of the scale, usually employees who work with their hands, may not pay a lot when they file a tax return, but they pay 110 days of their labor just the same: Sales taxes, transportation taxes, property taxes which are paid to their landlord if they are renters, and so on. Since they earn so little their taxes are compounded and hidden in the cruelest of ways after they pay their bills. Every one of their hard earned dollars is taxed and taxed again as they find their way into Socialist bank accounts.

The ultimate tax burden in a Socialist society always falls upon the backs of the lowest income workers no matter how the books are cooked to make it look otherwise. Low income employees pay plenty regardless of the public relations baloney that is fashionable nowadays. When wealthy Socialists pay taxes, they do so with the labors of others. In effect, the rich man’s taxes are simply another tax on the poor.

The highest price that private sector, low income, workers pay is the loss of individual liberty taken from them by the very tax system that will enslave them even further as more Socialist leeches find their way to the tax trough. The low income segment of the workforce will never be able to offset taxes through interest-earning savings because they can never earn enough to save anything. Then, to add insult to financial injury, Communist teachers, who are among the biggest beneficiaries of American communism, say that education is the only way out of poverty.

p.s. You might enjoy this thread about money:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/215462-gold-is-god-s-money.html

 

[PratchettFan]

To pratchettFan: And thank you for quoting my entire response.

To pratchettFan: Liberal talking points about the lunatic fringe works for standup comics. It does not work so well for uninformed bumpkins trying to sound politically astute. Making secession a hippie issue is more ludicrous than trying to make it about race.

None of your misdirection changes the true ingredients for revolution. The unrest in this country is about individual liberties, working for one’s self, private property Rights, the Constitution, and so on —— the very things the parasite class took away from private sector Americans. Those are the things Americans want back.



To pratchettFan: Then try this:

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

middle class (noun)

The members of society occupying a socioeconomic position intermediate between those of the lower working classes and the wealthy.

Since you cannot see a hyphen in a spoken word —— when Hussein says middle class he also means he would replace the middle-class with the tax collector’s morality:

middle-class (adjective)

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the middle class; bourgeois: middle-class taste; middle-class morality

NOTE: Newspapers articles use both the noun and the adjective.

Yes, yes, yes. I get what you are saying but you missed the most important thing I said. I prefer reality. Expanding upon your wet dream for me doesn't change its basic nature.

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

To PratchettFan: Keep waiting. You’re jumping ahead to make your case. Petitions come first. It will take a while to move to the next step. I’m certain Hussein & Company will unintentionally speed up the process.

I'm not sure I have enough time to wait. Given my family history, I'll probably be dead in 30 to 35 years. But do keep me posted.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

since states are sovereign they have a more or less automatic right to seceed from the confederation. If not how would the states protect themselves from an abusive federal government? How can a person be free without this ability to walk away?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

since states are sovereign they have a more or less automatic right to seceed from the confederation. If not how would the states protect themselves from an abusive federal government? How can a person be free without this ability to walk away?

You are wrong legally and Constitutionally. Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid. The Supreme Court is recognized since 1804 as the final arbitrator on Constitutional Issues. Further the Constitution specifically States it is the final Court for the Government. It controls all cases between the States and the US Government. As stated IN the Constitution.

In 1869 the Supreme Court stated that a State may not unilaterally leave the Union. The only legal means to depart is via an act of Congress. This means that CONSTITUTIONALLY a State has no right to leave EXCEPT via a CONGRESSIONAL action.

Article III Section II

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Any LEGAL action between different States is the sole original judicial authority of the Supreme Court. Since a State wishing to leave and doing so Unilaterally would be a legal action between that State or States and the Remaining States via the federal Government, The Supreme Court in fact has the power to rule on such an event irregardless of the right to arbitrate the meaning of the Constitution.

Such a case has only occurred once and the Supreme Court ruled that a State may NOT unilaterally leave and must seek approval for such an action from Congress.

So even though you do not recognize the right of Judicial review of the meaning of the Constitution the Constitution CLEARLY States that the Supreme Court has the legal right to adjudicate cases between the States. Case closed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You are wrong legally and Constitutionally.

1) you forgot to say what I was wrong about, exactly.

2) dear, the south seceeded. The only thing that stopped them was the north's superior military. Had the south won the law and Constitution would have been on their side.


3) the colonies had no right to seceed legally or Constitutionally granted to them by the party that wanted them as subjects, obviously, but this did not stop them did it?????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are wrong legally and Constitutionally.

1) you forgot to say what I was wrong about, exactly.

2) dear, the south seceeded. The only thing that stopped them was the north's superior military. Had the south won the law and Constitution would have been on their side.


3) the colonies had no right to seceed legally or Constitutionally granted to them by the party that wanted them as subjects, obviously, but this did not stop them did it?????

You have argued that the Constitution allows States to leave Unilaterally. You have argued that the Supreme Court has no Constitutional power to interceded in the debate.

I have always admitted that A state or States could leave if they could win Militarily, you have claimed it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to oppose States unilaterally leaving the Union.

You are wrong. No one denies that by might of Arms a State or State may try to leave and if they win will have succeeded. The argument as established by the OP is that it is Constitutional for a State to unilaterally leave. And you have supported directly that claim.

The Constitution is clear. The Supreme Court has Judicial authority on all cases involving the US Government or between States. The 1869 case is the law of the land and is Constitutional until such time as a new case overrules it.

 

[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.

As noted you claimed that the Supreme Court had no authority to rule on the case and is to be ignored.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The 1869 case is the law of the land and is Constitutional until such time as a new case overrules it.

dear, anyone can read current law but this does not mean it is future law. The op really implied that through logical argument or force of arms the future could easily be different from the past. Too subtle for you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The 1869 case is the law of the land and is Constitutional until such time as a new case overrules it.

dear, anyone can read current law but this does not mean it is future law. The op really implied that through logical argument or force of arms the future could easily be different from the past. Too subtle for you?

Wrong you and he both claimed it was absolutely Constitutional to unilaterally leave the Union. You further claimed directly that the Supreme Court had no say in the matter. The Constitution is clear as day. ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong you and he both claimed it was absolutely Constitutional to unilaterally leave the Union.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

You further claimed directly that the Supreme Court had no say in the matter. The Constitution is clear as day. ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

 

[paperview]

Wrong you and he both claimed it was absolutely Constitutional to unilaterally leave the Union.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

You further claimed directly that the Supreme Court had no say in the matter. The Constitution is clear as day. ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

No, based on what just about what every legal scholar that exists would say.

Der.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong you and he both claimed it was absolutely Constitutional to unilaterally leave the Union.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

You further claimed directly that the Supreme Court had no say in the matter. The Constitution is clear as day. ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

No, based on what just about what every legal scholar that exists would say.

Der.

why not show us best example?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear RGS:
It is also outside the federal laws for
Congress to pass the ACA as a MANDATE (which goes through a different process than a tax)
and then for the Supreme Court to let the law stand
by interpreting it as a tax when in fact it would need to be rewritten and repassed
through Congress, to be legal.

While this is being challenged, how do you proceed in the meantime?

In logic, if you append a FALSE statement to anything true, you make the whole thing false.

If we keep going along with this as if it is OK, then we void any sense of govt standards,
ethics and enforcement of Constitutional laws and process. We just keep justifying that whatever govt does is automatically legal and legitimate. Really?

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.



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:



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.

Your failure to understand how our Government and Country works does not negate the fact what I said is true. It is ILLEGAL for a State to leave the Union. EXCEPT with consent of Congress. Failing consent the State or States leaving would need one of two things to happen to be successful. One would be the US does not put down the insurrection. The second would be to militarily defeat the US.

If States chose to leave the Union I would decide based on their position which to join. I am to old and medically unfit to serve in the military. But I would still help the side I chose.

I believe that unless it is clear case of treason or a major event the military would shatter in a civil war. Some would defect, some would stay loyal to the US Government depending on the orders and plans for said insurrection.

Further I doubt any "civilian" force Obama created would fair any differently. The lazy and the spoiled are not going to join ANY Army. Nor are they going to arm themselves and buy enough ammunition to be a threat.

 

[paperview]

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution






yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

No, based on what just about what every legal scholar that exists would say.

Der.

why not show us best example?

You seriously need to be shown examples that

"ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional."

Seriously?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, based on what just about what every legal scholar that exists would say.

Der.

why not show us best example?

You seriously need to be shown examples that

"ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional."

Seriously?

dear, we were not talking about what every liberal legal scholar would say, but rather what many libertarians like Jefferson would say.

 

[paperview]

Fucking idiots.