Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[Toro]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

There was a Family Guy episode dealing with this topic.

 

[candycorn]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

There was a Family Guy episode dealing with this topic.

I often feel as though I'm in a Family Guy episode and we hvae 40-3,000 Peter Griffins here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

You are a fucking idiot...you realize that right? You can not do something that harms others because then it becomes duty to arrest you and have you answer for that crime.

Who are you to dictate to candy's sovereign kingdom what is legal or illegal? These are YOUR rules, remember?

Seceding from the current government's jurisdiction, and declaring your own government, with your own laws, is your right, according to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Far from it,

They were wrong in the past and they'll be wrong going forward. Any human endeavor will have the same result; right some times, wrong others. Don't be so damnned naive.

But if they say you have to drive with your lights on tomorrow, you have to turn your lights on or you're violating the law.

The COURT DOES NOT Have the final say on ANYTHING...the people DO. Get used to it.

Ahh, the fiction of your world.

Yeah, people in the court do....

When you get into your truck tomorrow, don't stop at red lights and see where you end up. Go with your defense that "you" decided the red lights were infringing on your rights.

Or assert your 'liberty' by driving around with no license plates...

...like Timothy McVeigh was doing when they picked him up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The COURT DOES NOT Have the final say on ANYTHING...the people DO. Get used to it.

Ahh, the fiction of your world.

The people have the last word via the election of members of Congress. Congress can pass legislation limiting the scope of the Supreme Court with exceptions and specific regulations. They have never chosen to do so.

Who told you that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I had a good friend of mine that I played ball with years ago. He made a lot of $$$ in the used car business and now lives in rural Tennessee on 250 acres. He is active in militia movements I went to see him a few years ago.
There are over 3000 members in loose knot militia groups in Tennessee he tells me. About 100,00 nationwide. And he says the time is ripe for secession and revolution as his #s are growing. They do not advocate violence but he says it is close to when they have to fight back against the government same as we did against the British.
After a few beers and listening to this I had a few questions for my friend:
I asked him how many air craft carrier groups do the combined militia groups have? How many squadrons of BlackHawk helicopters and fighter planes? At this point he was not taking this too well. He then switched to well, they will take over and then the military will back them.
Sure, right.
You folks better have something to fight with if you plan on fighting.
I do not see it but go for it if that is your thing. Good luck.

With ONE CAVIAT my friend...the Military is SWORN by oath to DEFEND AND PROTECT the Constitution Of The United States and *NOT* The Government, Two totally separate entities.

No actually you're wrong. Here's the actual oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I highlighted the relevant portion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has anyone explained to me how my state could arbitrarily deny me my 2nd amendment rights,

i.e., how that could possibly be constitutional?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh, the fiction of your world.

The people have the last word via the election of members of Congress. Congress can pass legislation limiting the scope of the Supreme Court with exceptions and specific regulations. They have never chosen to do so.

Who told you that?

The Constitution I quoted it need me to quote it again?

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

The present administration tells other nations that they should not attack its citizens if they want to separate from their parent nation, so it should be put the the test here in the United States. Texas can start it off. They must first pay back all federal monies and reimburse the federal government for any interstate highways contructed, as they were funded by the federal government. New currency must be made and border check points set up. Texas passports must be made for citizens wanting to travel outside the new nation. Any electrical services coming from outside Texas must be dismantled. Anyway, there will be a lot to do. But once free of the United States, Texas can have its own original flag (perhaps the stars and bars).

 

[Unkotare]

Great government structures coupled with great laws are only as good as the GREAT PEOPLE who man them.

This constitution and the laws and decisions about the constitution that have flowed from it are no longer serving the people.

The system is BROKE, citizens.

It is NOT repairable, either.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhQql-ZbZmg]Tombstone Well, bye short version - YouTube[/ame]



Don't let the door hit you on the ass, ass.

 

[Unkotare]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

There was a Family Guy episode dealing with this topic.

Ah yes, the great nation of Petoria!

 

[Unkotare]

FORCING televison, radio, print, that run political advertisements for federal elections to run FREE ads for persons who get so many names on a petition (again, set the threshold where you like) to get the money out of elections or at least get the need for the money out of elections. .

What else is your fantasy government going to "force" private businesses to do after they've shredded the Constitution? What are they going to "force" you personally to do?


You're looking for another country entirely, not The United States of America.

 

[Ravi]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

You are a fucking idiot...you realize that right? You can not do something that harms others because then it becomes duty to arrest you and have you answer for that crime.

Yep, that's why the Civil War happened. The south wanted to keep enslaving black people.

 

[g5000]

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.

At the time of the Constitution's ratification, it was true that slavery was dying out. That is why ending the slave trade by 1808 was acceptable to the South as part of the compromises during the convention. See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

But that was before the South's cotton industry took off. And that took off when the demand for cotton exponentially climbed in Britain with the advent of technological advances in textiles in that country. A technology the US later stole.

The demand for American cotton exploded at the beginning of the 19th century, and thus the need for slave labor exploded. And so when 1808 rolled around, and the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves was enacted by Congress in 1807, the South refused to abide it.

And so the slave population rocketed upward from 700,000 in 1790 to 4 million by 1860. You can see in the link the explosion in the slave population was in the agricultural South, while it declined in the North.

This simple fact destroys the myth of the imminent extinction of slavery on the eve of the Civil War.

Cotton was king in the South well into the 1930s. Which is why the subjugation of blacks, regardless of their freedom from slavery, continued to that period. Cotton picking was "****** work".

 

[g5000]

From Mississippi's declaration of secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Declaration of Causes of Secession

There are four declarations of secession in that link. Slavery is mentioned 82 TIMES in four declarations. See if you can find any other word, other than "the" or "a" used that often.

Rights are only mentioned 35 times. For instance:

The right of property in slaves...

You have to be the densest of piss drinking revisionist retards to argue the war was not about slavery.

 

[Contumacious]

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.

.

Great Britain, Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries.

"Some people have objected that the United States couldn't have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North's financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.

.

 

[Ravi]

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.

.

Great Britain, Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries.



.

And in the US, the Southern states decided it was worth fighting a war over.

 

[thanatos144]

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.

.

Great Britain, Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries.

"Some people have objected that the United States couldn't have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North's financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.

.

This countries didnt have hillbilly Democrats fighting to keep slavery.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What we are saying is :

1- There was no need to wipe out 620,000 Americans when slavery was on its way out

2- There was no need to create the precedent that DC could dictate to the states and violate their sovereignty.

.

The idea slavery was on the way out is entirely false.

.

Great Britain, Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries.

"Some people have objected that the United States couldn't have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North's financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.

.

The South decided war would be fought not the north. One can not come to peaceful terms when the one side is raising armies and seizing property that is not theirs and then attacks the other side.

 

[National Socialist]

There the mental midget comes with the racial name calling...