|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:19 AM
Posts: 10,
Visits: 14
|
|
| Succeding from the union is not un-patriotic or un-American. I can't go into detail about how or why from my point of view, as that would violate the UCMJ code(s) that I am currently under, but I can assure you that the thought has crossed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:25 PM
Posts: 63,
Visits: 344
|
|
Malcom Reynolds (10/21/2009)
We loose one lousey election and you want to quit?
No, these sentiments have been around for a long time, and many if not Most of the reasons are valid. The old boiling a frog story.
I'm not to the point myself, I have hope we can turn the Federal govt around, but imo everyone needs to be honest about all the options available and the reasons for those options.
Fear Should be in the leadership, not in the population. The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting or sport. I'm not saying we should do this, but I am saying the threat should be there, should be valid, and should have teeth, so we never Have to use it. Otherwise, the consolidation of power Will continue. Government grows, Power corrupts, it's the natural inclination of governments and needs to be held in check. Tyrants don't care about paper so much, or the words on them... like telling a murderer "I have a right to life! It's in the constitution!"
imo
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:36 PM
Posts: 50,
Visits: 71
|
|
Okay so this thread goes on and on and on.
Here is the bottom line. This was just an odd topic to say the least. If you were to bolster secession and you live in texas, you can't. Check your own historical information: If you were to claim secession Texas by it's own bi-laws is to be then basically torn apart into four states. I took alot of heat for some of my comments by I really don't care.
It is a treasonous act, and many, many, many americans, regardless of party would tell you that. You can argue this and that bought at the end of the day, try and become your own Country. I said this once and I will say it again. What would be the point, you would have no federal money, you would be austrisized by the rest of the world. Who would you trade with and what currency would you use. None and you world alliance would be with whom? Iran, North Korea, Libya, Venezuala and Cuba? You would have no federal aid, so no one would get paid, how would you construct a government, where would your military be, you need factories and raw supplies to build tanks, and plains, the US Military would pull out immediately, in addition some president would be the next Abraham Lincoln and deal with it accordingly, but what if they didn't have the patience of Lincoln and decided to squash you like a bug.
Constitutionaly yes you are all right, you can take a phrase here or a sentence there and all of the sudden you have a legal ground to stand on, but there are other amendments that take away those rights. So you are still in the dog house. Tear my comments apart again I don't care. The fact is that if you truly do bleed red, white and blue you aren't having it. Is it a fun topic to dance around on? Sure maybe we can talk about some conspiracy theory instead, we can make one up if you like... the democrats have spiked all of the rice crispies in the world with liberal sugar to make our youth all liberals.
This topic though... This is a very sensitive subject. You can debate the legal grounds all day long but our founding fathers were a little smarter then they let on to be...
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:19 AM
Posts: 10,
Visits: 14
|
|
It's totally legal in the eyes of our founding fathers, since they realized that a government can become tyrannical and power hungry. Why do you think we're here now? It's patriotism at it's finest.
And if you think that by succeeding from the union, that somehow auttomatically makes you a communist/facist nation that can only trade with Cuba and the likes, man you have some narrow views. We trade with England, do we not?
I'm not saying that succession is the answer, but it IS an option should things get really out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Nota Pliccable (10/17/2009)
Your argument establishes a historical precedent for breaking the law, and is not a legal argument nor a suggestion of how the founders wrote laws (the Constitution) later.
The Declaration of Independence was just one part of what I'm saying; I provided other evidence that indicates the founders believed in the right to secede.
The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. Even though people here are arguing that the court can make mistakes (of course), their ruling means the act is unconstitutional by definition until the legislature amends the Constitution in this regard or until the court revisits and reverses the ruling.
SCOTUS opinion is constitutionality. Don't confuse that with morality or right and wrong. They are not meant to be your moral compass, and if (lol straw man) SCOTUS ruled rape was OK, you would be (morally) right to violate the ruling, though doing so would be unconstitutional. SCOTUS can also make a "mistake" interpreting the law, but their ruling nevertheless defines constitutionality on the issue until an amendment or a new ruling.
No, Supreme Court opinion is not equal to constitutionality; original intent is equal to constitutionality. I again point interested parties to this article by constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira on the role of the federal courts: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
redstatefail (10/19/2009)
Hmmm.... Invading Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, "enhanced interogation" (cough....tourture....cough), signing orders, etc....
Dubya was a tyrant!
Yes, many actions taken by the Bush administration were indeed tyrannical.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
I realize that this post of yours was not directed to me, but I am replying to it, anyway.
Abraham Lincoln (10/20/2009)
What happened to preserving and defending the constitution of these United States?
What happened to the allegiance you pledged?
What happened to supporting the Republic and defending freedom?
Perhaps you should consider those questions in light of Lincoln's egregious abuse of the Constitution.
If the GOP wants to marginalize and balkanize this country, then those ideals on which it was founded, those ideals promoted by Hannity and Reagan and Bush and all of those brave troops on whose shoulders our freedom stands, are rendered meaningless and trite.
When one studies American history, it becomes abundantly clear that the contemporary United States looks almost nothing like what the founders intended, and neocons like Sean Hannity and George Bush are part of the reason why that is the case.
I believe in our country, I belive in our democracy, and I believe that our constitution is the finest form of government yet brought forth upon this earth.
The United States is a confederated constitutional republic, not a democracy.
You, sir, are not a true conservative, and do not have in mind what is best for the American people.
True constitutional conservatives care about original intent, yet people here seem to disregard the objective constitutional history that affirms the right to secede.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Malcom Reynolds (10/21/2009)
Did you know there is an amendment to the Texas constitution on the ballot next month to allow elected officials to hold military rank in the Texas State Guard? (for that matter, did you know Texas had an army?) If passed the governor of Texas could be head of a private army. THAT doesn't sound very American to me. The president is a civilian leader of the military. I thought only South America and Africa liked having the military run the government.
States are supposed to have their own armies; it's called the militia and it is firmly historical. Dr. Edwin Vieira has written much on this subject over the years. See:
1. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin11.htm
2. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin12.htm
3. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin13.htm
Additional articles by Dr. Vieira on the state constitutional militia (and other subjects) are available at http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm
|
|
|
|
