I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[G.T.]

Bripat gets confused by simple concepts.

Like, saying that revoking consent without action to infect any change...


is the same, to him, as saying revoking consent is always meaningless.

Its ok, its because youre stupid bripat.

Ironic. You call me stupid in a post that is pathetically stupid.

^ Thats not an argument.

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

We habve a criminal government, with no greater criminal than Chief Justice, John Roberts, who should be the first against the wall when the people rise and hold our criminal government accountable for it's crimes against the American people

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Another leftists who when I say I'm against both parties only hears one side

 

[Skylar]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

 

[kaz]

I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

Good. Now get the fuck out of my country.

Why would I let a loser like you decide that? Pass

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

BriPat seems to like Canada. Think about it.

I'd be in favor of your moving to Canada

 

[Moonglow]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Another leftists who when I say I'm against both parties only hears one side

Actually I'm ambidextrous..

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

Besides that you're playing fast and loose with quotes, Madison is a God to you?

 

[kaz]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Another leftists who when I say I'm against both parties only hears one side

Actually I'm ambidextrous..

You're just stupid

 

[Skylar]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

Besides that you're playing fast and loose with quotes, Madison is a God to you?

And by 'fast and loose', you mean accurately and in context?

And Madison is certainly a better source than you are on the meaning of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Our arguments frequently reach this point. Where you cite yourself. And I cite an infinitely more knowledgeable and authoritative source. And you get increasingly frustrated as I listen to the knowledgeable source rather than whatever you make up.

Unless you've got a better source than Madison, you're done.

 

[Moonglow]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

Another leftists who when I say I'm against both parties only hears one side

Actually I'm ambidextrous..

You're just stupid

Gotta keep it at your level or I have to play in the advance class threads...

 

[bripat9643]

If the contract is not with me, then I'm not bound by it. When did "the people" sign this contract? All I see on it are the signatures of a bunch of humbug politicians.

Its with the People of the Several States. Of which you're a part. And if the People of the Several States want to exit the contract, they can. But only the parties to the contract can exit or modify it.

Sorry my little anarchist.....but James Madison had a far better understanding of how our system of government works that you do.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

And it continues on none the less. As you've got the process exactly backward. We're not subject to your authority. You're subject to our authority. As we are The People. You, all by your lonesome, are not.

I get that you're an Anarchist. I get that you consider the founders tyrants. But in a legal discussion, both issues are irrelevant. And 'consent to be governed' is most definitely a legal issue.

When did you acquire any legitimate authority over me?

The biggest problem in this world is people who believe they have "authority" to run other people's lives. That's the fundamental principle of fascism and communism.

Me personally? Never. The People, of which I'm a part? Long before either of us was born, codified most recently by the US Constitution. We create laws, we enforce laws, we adjudicate laws.

Your imaginary revisionist history of the US where you can unilaterally exempt yourself from all law at your whim has nothing to do with our system of law, our constitution, or our legal tradition.

Which is why its so gloriously irrelevant to any discussion of the law.

I said "legitimate authority." Hmmm. . . . .history doesn't determine whether you and your gang of authority make laws I have to obey. Only my consent does that.

 

[bripat9643]

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

Besides that you're playing fast and loose with quotes, Madison is a God to you?

And by 'fast and loose', you mean accurately and in context?

And Madison is certainly a better source than you are on the meaning of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Our arguments frequently reach this point. Where you cite yourself. And I cite an infinitely more knowledgeable and authoritative source. And you get increasingly frustrated as I listen to the knowledgeable source rather than whatever you make up.

Unless you've got a better source than Madison, you're done.

Madison has no more authority to interpret the Constitution then me or you or Kaz.

 

[bripat9643]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

The only ones who are legitimately bound by the compact are the ones who agreed to it. That means 99.99999% of the people in the history of the United States aren't bound by it.

 

[bodecea]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

We habve a criminal government, with no greater criminal than Chief Justice, John Roberts, who should be the first against the wall when the people rise and hold our criminal government accountable for it's crimes against the American people

Yes, yes, yes.....cry us a river. What have YOU done to vote those out in your state, your district?

 

[bripat9643]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

The 10th Amendment does no such thing. Your attempts at logic are laughable, to say the least.

 

[Skylar]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

The only ones who are legitimately bound by the compact are the ones who agreed to it. That means 99.99999% of the people in the history of the United States aren't bound by it.

Says you. Not the Compact or the laws of this country. The Compact is still in effect. You disagree. And it doesn't matter if you do. As the law isn't subject to your whim or personal opinion.

Worse, you avoid the obvious pitfalls of your absurd application of 'consent'. If a rapist was caught in the act of raping a woman, per your own reasoning he could declare that he 'no longer consents to be governed' and be exempt from any law.

Historically, legally, constitutionally and practically......your proposal is simply nonsense. Which is why its never been the system of laws in our country.

You're an anarchist. We the People aren't.

 

[Skylar]

... by the US government. I no longer accept the legitimacy of the US government. The two major parties are running candidates who say they oppose capitalism and free trade. Both parties give us more war, more government, and less liberty. Government run education and now healthcare, free redistribution of money, free access to our country for illegal aliens and criminals, policeman to the world.

To Hillary and Trump, you are not acting in my name, I do not consent to be governed by either of you

I feel the sentiment, but as long as you live in this country, guess what, them are the rules.

Now if you want to discuss a secession by a state or group of states, well I am all ears and very interested. I actually believe the civil war was an unjust war because the south no longer wanted to be under the ruling of the US government, and they should have been allowed to secede.

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

The 10th Amendment does no such thing. Your attempts at logic are laughable, to say the least.

Says you. Jurisdiction over State territory is clearly a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal Government. Unilateral secession by a State clearly strips the Federal Government of that power.

And the 10th amendment forbids it.

You haven't actually offered a counter argument. You've just offered vague insults. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

 

[Skylar]

Same problem as with an individual: the only party that can exit or modify the Compact is the parties that made the Compact: The People of the Several States.


"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. "

James Madison


Which neither South Carolina nor any other of the Secessionist States were.

A single State has no more authority to secede than you have the authority to 'secede' your house and yard from the State you're a part of. Or Kaz has from removing himself from the authority of the government of the state or country he lives in.

Secessionist and Sovereign Citizen arguments are closely related. And they're both extra-legal nonsense.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

And jurisdiction over the territory of the States is a delegated power of the Federal government. Which secession would deny the Federal Government. Meaning the 10th amendment *prevents* secession, as it would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

Which the States are explicitly forbidden from doing by the 10th amendment.

Again, James Madison had a *far* better understanding of what the Bill of Rights was 'supposed' to mean than you do. You know, being its author. And Madison explicitly contradicts you.

Besides that you're playing fast and loose with quotes, Madison is a God to you?

And by 'fast and loose', you mean accurately and in context?

And Madison is certainly a better source than you are on the meaning of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Our arguments frequently reach this point. Where you cite yourself. And I cite an infinitely more knowledgeable and authoritative source. And you get increasingly frustrated as I listen to the knowledgeable source rather than whatever you make up.

Unless you've got a better source than Madison, you're done.

Madison has no more authority to interpret the Constitution then me or you or Kaz.

Says you. But unlike you or Kaz, Madison was actually at the COnstitutional Conventions. Actually wrote the constitution. Actually argued for its creation in the Federalist Papers. Actually wrote the Bill of Rights and debated it on the floor of the Constitutional congress.

You've done none of those things. Making Madison an objectively a *way* better source than you or Kaz on what the constitution is supposed to mean. By any rational standard.

And if you're talking about authority to interpret the Constitution, Federalist Paper 78 makes it ludicrously clear that such authority is imbued in the Judiciary. Which has already ruled on the matter of Secession in Texas V. White.

And contradicted you too.

So original intent, objectively knowledgeable source, or straight constitutionally authority.....you lose.

 

[Skylar]

Its with the People of the Several States. Of which you're a part. And if the People of the Several States want to exit the contract, they can. But only the parties to the contract can exit or modify it.

Sorry my little anarchist.....but James Madison had a far better understanding of how our system of government works that you do.

When did I vote on this Constitution? When did anyone vote on it. "The people" means all the people, not a minority, and not a majority. All of them. If I haven't agreed, then I haven't given my consent. It's that simple.

I don't give a damn how our system works. That's precisely my objection to it: how it works - without my consent.

And it continues on none the less. As you've got the process exactly backward. We're not subject to your authority. You're subject to our authority. As we are The People. You, all by your lonesome, are not.

I get that you're an Anarchist. I get that you consider the founders tyrants. But in a legal discussion, both issues are irrelevant. And 'consent to be governed' is most definitely a legal issue.

When did you acquire any legitimate authority over me?

The biggest problem in this world is people who believe they have "authority" to run other people's lives. That's the fundamental principle of fascism and communism.

Me personally? Never. The People, of which I'm a part? Long before either of us was born, codified most recently by the US Constitution. We create laws, we enforce laws, we adjudicate laws.

Your imaginary revisionist history of the US where you can unilaterally exempt yourself from all law at your whim has nothing to do with our system of law, our constitution, or our legal tradition.

Which is why its so gloriously irrelevant to any discussion of the law.

I said "legitimate authority." Hmmm. . . . .history doesn't determine whether you and your gang of authority make laws I have to obey. Only my consent does that.

That's just a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Where you insist that anything that you don't agree with lacks legitimacy.

Alas, you're not the sole, authoritative arbiter of legitimacy. And your rejection of the US Constitution, US law, all law enforcement and all adjudication has exactly nothing to do with your relationship to each.

You're still subject to all of them. That you say otherwise means nothing. As you're neither the authoritative arbiter of such matters nor the basis of our system of law. The People are.

And you are The People.