I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[Synthaholic]

The US Constitution

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Libertarians were for the Constitution before they were against it.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and Brit...I'm still waiting for you to quote me ever claiming that you introduced civil war to this thread.

You're not in 324. So how could I possibly be addressing you?

Your play, Captain Strawman.

 

[Skylar]

The US Constitution

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Libertarians were for the Constitution before they were against it.

Its a pretty short step from many flavors of Libertarianism to anarchy. And from anarchy to a complete rejection of the Constitution and a denunciation of the Founders as tyrants.

As Bripat, our resident anarchist, has graciously demonstrated for us.

 

[Synthaholic]

Damn, why is the board filled with sobby chicks today. Here's a tissue, Nancy. Have a good cry

Sobbing? Over your whine? Not likely Cowgirl.

My God you are stupid. Read your post I was replying to.

Perhaps you could retire to your safe-space for a while and get a grip on your emotions........

Bam! Now that's what I'm talking about. Repeating my own line back to me, there can be no more honest admission that you have nothing.

What is your gay obsession with emotions and how I feel? I assure you, I don't give a shit how you feel, I was just mocking you

Looks like another.....



Better hide in that safe-place awhile.

What a great song!

 

[Synthaholic]

I didn't say that, I specifically said I am not saying that. Reread the OP and stop saying snarky things that have nothing to do with what I said

I said 'this is like...'

So if you aren't saying you don't give your consent to be govorned by duly elected US officials and laws, what are you saying?

Another liberal who failed civics. Seriously, if you don't understand the basic premises of the foundation of the laws of your own country, has Google never occurred to you?

You keep repeating this, not supporting how your "revocation" means a god damn, and melting down with ad hominem whines.

Must be a real wise guy

You didn't play with your dolls long enough, you're still sobbing. Try hyperventilating into a bag if you need to

^ standard insults when Kaz is failing...failing...failing...

...which is daily.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The Jews were subject to the Third Reich. According to your theory, it was legitimate and the Jews "consented" to being gassed. That's enough to prove that your theory of legitimate government is idiotic.

 

[Faun]

... 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

Sorry to inform you, but withdrawing your consent is not actually an option of yours. It's the will of the majority of those whom choose to vote. You're only options are suicide or fleeing the country. That choice I'd yours.

 

[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.

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.

How can an illegitimate contract still be "in effect." It was never consented to in the first place, and the government has violated the terms at every opportunity. It definitely lost any shred of credibility in 1861.

As always, you're understanding of consent is wrong and moronic. Whether the rapist consents to anything is irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Jews were subject to the Third Reich. According to your theory, it was legitimate and the Jews "consented" to being gassed. That's enough to prove that your theory of legitimate government is idiotic.

Wow. Way to validate Godwin's law by going right for the Nazis.

You aren't subject to death camps. Nor do the Nazi's invalidate the US Constitution. Or have the slightest thing to do with it.

My argument is simple: Your agreement with or consent of the US Constitution is irrelevant. As you alone are not the Party of the Compact. The People of the Several States are.

And you are not the People of the Several States. Ergo, you can't modify or exit the Compact. Only they can.

Sorry, my little Anarchist......but you're not immune from all law just because you imagine you are.

 

[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

Sorry to inform you, but withdrawing your consent is not actually an option of yours. It's the will of the majority of those whom choose to vote. You're only options are suicide or fleeing the country. That choice I'd yours.

Wrong, douche bag. Majority vote does not constitute consent of the minority.

 

[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

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

You're just stupid

 

[Synthaholic]

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that kaz started this thread for some much-needed attention.

Poor boy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The Jews were subject to the Third Reich. According to your theory, it was legitimate and the Jews "consented" to being gassed. That's enough to prove that your theory of legitimate government is idiotic.

Wow. Way to validate Godwin's law by going right for the Nazis.

You aren't subject to death camps. Nor do the Nazi's invalidate the US Constitution. Or have the slightest thing to do with it.

My argument is simple: Your agreement with or consent of the US Constitution is irrelevant. As you alone are not the Party of the Compact. The People of the Several States are.

And you are not the People of the Several States. Ergo, you can't modify or exit the Compact. Only they can.

Sorry, my little Anarchist......but you're not immune from all law just because you imagine you are.

If I'm not a party to the contract, then I'm not bound by it. Don't you know anything about contract law?

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that kaz started this thread for some much-needed attention.

Poor boy.

What's obvious is the fact that you're a douche bag.

 

[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.

How can an illegitimate contract still be "in effect." It was never consented to in the first place, and the government has violated the terms at every opportunity. It definitely lost any shred of credibility in 1861.

As always, you're understanding of consent is wrong and moronic. Whether the rapist consents to anything is irrelevant.

The government violates the terms....according to who? Your follow up argument is based on the same fallacy as the argument you're trying to buttress: that you and you alone have the authority to interpret the constitution, its applicability, or its authority.

Um, nope. You don't. That's a power held The People and delegated to their representatives.

You're neither The People. Nor their representatives. Rendering your personal opinion gloriously irrelevant to the application of any law or the outcome of any case.

 

[kaz]

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.

So Madison thought that if a resident of your State consented 200 years ago or more than you consented and you should STFU.

STFU, girlfriend, you're full of shit

 

[Moonglow]

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...

You're just stupid

Are you my dead sister?

 

[kaz]

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.

Skylar is high, the idea that Madison thought that future generations of American should shut the fuck up is ... well .. Skylar ...

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Jews were subject to the Third Reich. According to your theory, it was legitimate and the Jews "consented" to being gassed. That's enough to prove that your theory of legitimate government is idiotic.

Wow. Way to validate Godwin's law by going right for the Nazis.

You aren't subject to death camps. Nor do the Nazi's invalidate the US Constitution. Or have the slightest thing to do with it.

My argument is simple: Your agreement with or consent of the US Constitution is irrelevant. As you alone are not the Party of the Compact. The People of the Several States are.

And you are not the People of the Several States. Ergo, you can't modify or exit the Compact. Only they can.

Sorry, my little Anarchist......but you're not immune from all law just because you imagine you are.

If I'm not a party to the contract, then I'm not bound by it. Don't you know anything about contract law?

Ah, but you changed a very important word in my post.

You are not THE party to the Compact. You are part of The People. And The People wield authority that you do not. Only the people can exit or modify the compact.

Not you all by your lonesome. Nor can you make laws, elect anyone, adjudicate any case, enforce any law. As you, all by your lonesome, lack that authority.

We don't lack that authority. As the constitution, the constitutional congress, our nation's history and all practical application of law demonstrates.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Skylar is high, the idea that Madison thought that future generations of American should shut the fuck up is ... well .. Skylar ...

Madison, that guy that ran when the British invaded, took and burned Washington D.C.?