Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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.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.... 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
Wrong, douche bag. Majority vote does not constitute consent of the minority.
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.
Because you're brain-dead and can't understand the states, including the one of which you're a citizen, formed a compact with the federal government, bound by the U.S. Constitution and the framework laid out within it. Neither you nor krazy kaz, as individuals, get to unilaterally "opt out." You're morons who can't grasp that, I get that; but comprehend it or not, the majority of voters decide their representatives for everyone in the U.S. The majority of electoral votes decides the president for everyone in the U.S.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.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.... 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
Wrong, douche bag. Majority vote does not constitute consent of the minority.
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.
None of what you said disproves what I said. All you done is repeat, majority rule is consent over and over in one form or another. The majority does not consent for the minority. In fact, we are seldom asked to vote on individual issues. We merely get a choice between which of two scumbags to send to Washington. Then they claim they have a "mandate" to do whatever they planned to do. Of course, they have no such thing.
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.
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.
Yeah, that means you're delusional.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.
"I" said "I" withdraw "my" consent to be governed. As a collectivist, you don't understand what that means, do you?
... 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.
Libertarians were for the Constitution before they were against it.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.
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.
Lyin' Ryan will be back. This Poor Sarah photo was just too good to ignore.Libertarians were for the Constitution before they were against it.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.
Speaking of which, great avatar for you. Glad you gave up the rouse that you're hetero
There's no much you can do with someone is so utterly immune to facts and logic.Libertarians were for the Constitution before they were against it.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.
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.
Yes, and it’s just as ignorant and ridiculous now as when you first posted it.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.
"I" said "I" withdraw "my" consent to be governed. As a collectivist, you don't understand what that means, do you?
Good. Now get the fuck out of my country.I withdraw my consent to be governed ...
I plan to govern myself
Yes, and it’s just as ignorant and ridiculous now as when you first posted it.
They are not absolute authoritarians. You can't even comprehend the implication of how holding elections every two years makes you sound retarded .I plan to govern myself
That IS what the nation was built around. Those such as Skylar desire a nation ruled by absolute authoritarians, but we were established upon a Constitution that looked to self-rule as the basis for good government.
The Stalinists in this thread can't grasp such things.
[
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.
You insane people really crack me up.This is what totalitarian thugs like Skylar cannot grasp, there is a limit to what people will tolerate. Hillary indicates that she will take actions to completely eradicate civil rights. Should she do that, it is absurd to believe there will not be a reaction to restore them.
They are not absolute authoritarians.
You can't even comprehend the implication of how holding elections every two years makes you sound retarded .
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.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.... 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
Wrong, douche bag. Majority vote does not constitute consent of the minority.
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.
None of what you said disproves what I said. All you done is repeat, majority rule is consent over and over in one form or another. The majority does not consent for the minority. In fact, we are seldom asked to vote on individual issues. We merely get a choice between which of two scumbags to send to Washington. Then they claim they have a "mandate" to do whatever they planned to do. Of course, they have no such thing.
Yeah, that means you're delusional.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.
"I" said "I" withdraw "my" consent to be governed. As a collectivist, you don't understand what that means, do you?
Actually, it was kaz who said, shut the fuck up...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.
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
Yes, and it’s just as ignorant and ridiculous now as when you first posted it.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.
"I" said "I" withdraw "my" consent to be governed. As a collectivist, you don't understand what that means, do you?
