I withdraw my consent to be governed ...

[Skylar]

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 ...

When did I ever say you should 'shut the fuck up'? You're more than welcome to babble in any manner you wish. Just don't expect it to amount to much, rationally or legally.

As you v. Madison on the meaning of the constition has the same winner every time: not you.

And your unilateral declaration that you 'do not consent to be government' is legally meaningless nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to your relationship with the law, the courts, the goverment or the People.

Sorry, Kaz......but you're still subject to the law.

 

[Votto]

... 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

Who says they care about your consent?

They control you.

 

[bripat9643]

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 ...

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

- Thomas Jefferson -

 

[kaz]

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.

Speaking of which, great avatar for you. Glad you gave up the rouse that you're hetero

 

[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.

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

Laughing......and you reach for your go to fallacy: the ludicrously inaccurate paraphrase. Its your tell, Kaz. And the sole crutch of your entire argument.

You don't need to paraphrase me. You can just quote me:

Madison is an much better source on the meaning of the constitution and the Bill of Rights....than you are.

Feel free to quote me. As we both know its true.

 

[bripat9643]

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 ...

When did I ever say you should 'shut the fuck up'? You're more than welcome to babble in any manner you wish. Just don't expect it to amount to much, rationally or legally.

As you v. Madison on the meaning of the constition has the same winner every time: not you.

And your unilateral declaration that you 'do not consent to be government' is legally meaningless nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to your relationship with the law, the courts, the goverment or the People.

Sorry, Kaz......but you're still subject to the law.

If you want to read something authoritative about the legitimacy of the Constitution, I recommend the following

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to makereasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them.They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody butthemselves. Let us see. Its language is:​

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, Queen Elizabeth, nice point there. And you don't know how to capitalize the English language. Funny since you speak for the British Empire

 

[Skylar]

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 ...

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

- Thomas Jefferson -

Then rebel. But when you do, recognize that its both treason and sedition. And you'll be treated accordingly.

Just ask Shays how Washington treated him when he tried what you're posting about.

 

[kaz]

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!

Bad hair day?

 

[Skylar]

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 ...

When did I ever say you should 'shut the fuck up'? You're more than welcome to babble in any manner you wish. Just don't expect it to amount to much, rationally or legally.

As you v. Madison on the meaning of the constition has the same winner every time: not you.

And your unilateral declaration that you 'do not consent to be government' is legally meaningless nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to your relationship with the law, the courts, the goverment or the People.

Sorry, Kaz......but you're still subject to the law.

If you want to read something authoritative about the legitimacy of the Constitution, I recommend the following

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Save of course that our system of law is not, nor has ever been Anarchy.

And the Constitution is fully enforcable. Just ask the States that tried to deny gay marriage. Or Justice Moore...who is currently on trial by his State's version of an Ethics Commission.

 

[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.

Yes, Queen Elizabeth, nice point there. And you don't know how to capitalize the English language. Funny since you speak for the British Empire

And you've been reduced to name calling and ad hominem fallacies.

You're done, Kaz.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Laughing......and you reach for your go to fallacy: the ludicrously inaccurate paraphrase. Its your tell, Kaz. And the sole crutch of your entire argument.

You don't need to paraphrase me. You can just quote me:

Madison is an much better source on the meaning of the constitution and the Bill of Rights....than you are.

Feel free to quote me. As we both know its true.

Your principle error, douche bag, is your belief that authorities determine what truth is. They don't. Madison's opinion is no more valid that mine or Kaz's.

 

[bripat9643]

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 ...

When did I ever say you should 'shut the fuck up'? You're more than welcome to babble in any manner you wish. Just don't expect it to amount to much, rationally or legally.

As you v. Madison on the meaning of the constition has the same winner every time: not you.

And your unilateral declaration that you 'do not consent to be government' is legally meaningless nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to your relationship with the law, the courts, the goverment or the People.

Sorry, Kaz......but you're still subject to the law.

If you want to read something authoritative about the legitimacy of the Constitution, I recommend the following

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Save of course that our system of law is not, nor has ever been Anarchy.

And the Constitution is fully enforcable. Just ask the States that tried to deny gay marriage. Or Justice Moore...who is currently on trial by his State's version of an Ethics Commission.

By "enforceable" you mean that a gang of men are willing use guns to enforce it. That's all you proved. You've basically just enunciated the moral code of criminals.

Whether our form of government constitutes anarchy is a non sequitur. No one ever claimed it did. You're an expert at knocking down claims nobody ever made.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Speaking of which, great avatar for you. Glad you gave up the rouse that you're hetero

Was he actually trying to claim he was straight?

 

[Synthaholic]

... 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 can't believe he and Christie Brinkley were an item. They just broke up.

 

[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

I can't believe he and Christie Brinkley were an item. They just broke up.

She certainly gets around..The only man she has stayed with a long time is Chuck Norris and his exercise machine commercials...

 

[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.

Speaking of which, great avatar for you. Glad you gave up the rouse that you're hetero

Lyin' Ryan will be back. This Poor Sarah photo was just too good to ignore.

 

[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.

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

Of course it does. We are a nation of laws, instituted, preserved, and enforced by the government WE elect. And we elect them by majority rule. By majority popular vote in the Congress and majority electoral vote for the president.

They fact that you don't like that couldn't be more meaningless -- majority rules.

This nation's government is run just as Thomas Jefferson suggested in the Declaration of Independence ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That consent comes strictly from the majority who successfully elect the people to represent us in the government.

If you don't like it -- tough shit. Like I said, there's two ways out -- death or leave. The choice is yours.

 

[Faun]

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 ...

When did I ever say you should 'shut the fuck up'? You're more than welcome to babble in any manner you wish. Just don't expect it to amount to much, rationally or legally.

As you v. Madison on the meaning of the constition has the same winner every time: not you.

And your unilateral declaration that you 'do not consent to be government' is legally meaningless nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to your relationship with the law, the courts, the goverment or the People.

Sorry, Kaz......but you're still subject to the law.

Actually, it was kaz who said, shut the fuck up...

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

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes, Queen Elizabeth, nice point there. And you don't know how to capitalize the English language. Funny since you speak for the British Empire

And you've been reduced to name calling and ad hominem fallacies.

You're done, Kaz.

There's no much you can do with someone is so utterly immune to facts and logic.