Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Very true.

All negotiations start with the promise of trading one thing for another. What would the BCSA have to trade to the USA?

Excellent question. Right now the areas proposed by the OP are all net recipients of Federal tax dollars. They will be starting in a tax hole without those funds right from the outset. Going to be embarrassing for the BCSA to crawl back to the USA begging for a handout given that they just told it where to shove it's Constitution and government.

Which is why we're still supporting Texass and other red states that don't earn their own keep.

Foxfyre? Solutions?

Still relying on that silly meme.... Sad, just sad. How many military bases are there in Texas? THAT'S where all of that Federal money is going silly person. NOT WELFARE.

There are only 16 military bases in TX but 25 in CA. How come TX gets more federal aid dollars than CA? Montana gets a higher percentage of federal aid than TX but it only has 1 base.

Military Bases by State

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...al-Aid-as-a-Percentage-of-State-Revenue_0.png

Because they employ more people silly person. Many bases in California are tiny. Bases in Texas are huge and have a hell of a lot more soldiers based there. I thought you were smart and could add 2+2. What happened?

Ahem. No ad homs in this zone.

Cough, cough.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course. Who would not be interested in creating a state that would reflect what they believe to be the best form of governance?
The only reason to not represent would be that you disagree with the original charter.

So do you agree with the rough outline of a new charter as proposed in the OP? If not, what would you change? That is the purpose of the process of course, to agree on what will go into that new charter.

In general, yes. I would prefer something added to preserve the 14th amendments inclusion of protections to the states level as well for protected rights.
Many of the people here really like to ignore the fact that the founders actually did not create a government that recognized inalienable rights as they were fine with the states violating your rights all day long. I think that protections at all levels of government needs to be hard coded into the government from the start for enumerated rights – we STILL have yet to complete that in this nation.

The central government should have no power whatsoever to treat any person, group, entity, demographic, etc. any differently than any other. And it would be charged to be 100% egalitarian and recognize and defend the unalienable rights of all.

But. . . if you do not allow the people to then form whatever sorts of society they wish to have, they have no freedom at all. Freedom must allow the ability to be wrong as well as right, to do it badly if that is the choice. To put the central government in charge of 'right and wrong' and 'good and bad' is to give total power to a tiny minority who may or may not have the best interests of all at heart.

The Founders trusted people given ability to live free to make mistakes but correct them, and to eventually get it right. Do we trust people enough to release them from totalitarian authority?

So, there would be no law enforcement?

How would you stop the strong from preying on the weak? What about the lazy guy down the road who steals from the garden of the industrious neighbor?

Little Red Hen and the Grasshopper v. the Ant come to mind.

There would be the law enforcement that the people chose to have. How do you think law and order came to the original colonies? It wasn't by edict from the federal government. Some were tightly restricted and narrow minded little theocracies, all which had voluntarily disbanded themselves by the end of the 18th century. Some were pretty lawless and unrestricted, but the people found that unsatisfactory too and formed social contract to remedy it.

Again liberty gives people the right to be wrong as well as right, to do things wrong along with doing things well. But those early histories suggest that people more often got it right than wrong without any interference from a central government.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

And all this time I had been searching in vain for a very long definition of the word "buzzkill."

In her defense, Foxy did say that this was merely a hypothetical, nothing more.

Furthermore, there is always room for improvement within the US Constitution. For this very reason, amendments are allowed, and Thomas Jefferson encouraged that the Constitution be renewed every 19 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

One can expect those participating in a discussion to follow the stated rules for that discussion. And if somebody thinks it is a wrong or stupid discussion, there is absolutely no requirement to participate in it at all. So those who don't understand the concept and spirit of the thread topic are really urged to find something else they like better to do and allow everybody else to enjoy this one.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Very true.

All negotiations start with the promise of trading one thing for another. What would the BCSA have to trade to the USA?

Excellent question. Right now the areas proposed by the OP are all net recipients of Federal tax dollars. They will be starting in a tax hole without those funds right from the outset. Going to be embarrassing for the BCSA to crawl back to the USA begging for a handout given that they just told it where to shove it's Constitution and government.

Which is why we're still supporting Texass and other red states that don't earn their own keep.

Foxfyre? Solutions?

Still relying on that silly meme.... Sad, just sad. How many military bases are there in Texas? THAT'S where all of that Federal money is going silly person. NOT WELFARE.

There are only 16 military bases in TX but 25 in CA. How come TX gets more federal aid dollars than CA? Montana gets a higher percentage of federal aid than TX but it only has 1 base.

Military Bases by State

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...al-Aid-as-a-Percentage-of-State-Revenue_0.png

Because they employ more people silly person. Many bases in California are tiny. Bases in Texas are huge and have a hell of a lot more soldiers based there. I thought you were smart and could add 2+2. What happened?

SDZ OP Rules for this thread forbid ad homs!

 

[HUGGY]

They have lobsters the size of your leg in Mexico.

True they haven't yet grasped the meaning of "Ham and Eggs". Their idea of a slice of ham is a wafer thin slice about a tenth the thickness of a piece of bacon. When ordering Hamon and Huevos make sure you order at least a dozen Hamons.

Also it escaped them on how to prepare beef. Huge steaks..but they don't cut off the fat or let the meat relax before serving. Again with the thinness. These faults could easily be fixed!

Just sayin...

 

[Dot Com]

From the, uhm, OP:

"We will take the best of the existing U.S. Constitution as the model for a new nation. This Constitution will be 'cleaned up' so that the original intent of the various articles and Bill of Rights will not be easily misinterpreted. (All other existing amendments would have to be debated and re-adopted.) And a new Constitution will reflect a society that has moved beyond the patriarchal and racial assumptions of our historical past and secure the rights of all on an equal basis."



Which parts need to get kirby'd up??



I guess the indentured servitude part could go, or would you like to keep it?

And shouldn't the 2nd amendment become the 1st article of Liberty in the New Constitition of the Breadbasket States of America (BSA)?

I agree. Are we to believe that OP is a constitutional scholar?

ALSO, seceding is a tacit admission of failure that one cannot appeal to the masses and garner their votes.

I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes, secession has had a positive effect. The separation of India into India and Pakistan was maybe, in retrospect, not such a bad move.

So India & Pakistan are BFF's now? What bout the Hindu Kush?

 

[Statistikhengst]

From the, uhm, OP:

"We will take the best of the existing U.S. Constitution as the model for a new nation. This Constitution will be 'cleaned up' so that the original intent of the various articles and Bill of Rights will not be easily misinterpreted. (All other existing amendments would have to be debated and re-adopted.) And a new Constitution will reflect a society that has moved beyond the patriarchal and racial assumptions of our historical past and secure the rights of all on an equal basis."



Which parts need to get kirby'd up??



I guess the indentured servitude part could go, or would you like to keep it?

And shouldn't the 2nd amendment become the 1st article of Liberty in the New Constitition of the Breadbasket States of America (BSA)?

I agree. Are we to believe that OP is a constitutional scholar?

ALSO, seceding is a tacit admission of failure that one cannot appeal to the masses and garner their votes.

I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes, secession has had a positive effect. The separation of India into India and Pakistan was maybe, in retrospect, not such a bad move.

So India & Pakistan are BFF's now? What bout the Hindu Kush?

Oh, I never said that are friends. But I bet the situation would be far worse had they not separated themselves. That is, however, just a personal feeling.

 

[Foxfyre]

Y'all need to start off easy in this Declaration thing and the leaving.

I'm gonna suggest you take your little band of rebels and build up enough "warriors" to take over another country like say Mexico or an Island country in the Caribbean. A land like Mexico could be fun, great beaches, etc. It was proven that they aren't that hard to fight. Mucho Corrupto. There could be good excuses you could use like needing to stop the drug cartels which the indigenous residents would welcome. They have plenty of natural resources..OIL!!! Etc.. What they do not have as do the USA is a sophisticated military. Ya...Mexico. You would have to get rid of the Bandittos in the mountains but that again would be a plus with the locals. Then you hire on an honest Mexican as a figure head. SWEET! Once the drug lords and corrupt miltary and policia are put in prisons the residents will quickly come around. Voila! you got a pretty wealthy country if it is run intelligently. They already have a pretty good handle of how to pay people cheap for labor ..just increase the jobs and bingo bango..a happy workforce. AND!!! here is the good news... !!!! The nare do wells all go running to America so there will be no need to take care of them!!!! How good could it be ???!!!!

AND the sport fishing in Mexico is maybe the best on the planet!!! For Reals!!!

Ya Mexico...definitely!!!

Just a thought. I would be tickled to be the Mayor of Zihataneo/Ixtapa. Sign Me UP!!!!

Just sayin.

I think most of us would prefer to stay right where we are, so annexation of others who liked what we accomplish could be a possibility on down the line.

Some seem to think the new nation--I'll call it New America to accommodate more than just the breadbasket states--will be made up of a few tiny parcels. Well, that would depend on how many like minded and freedom loving people are left wouldn't it? Just the few states I've mentioned as possibilities cover a land area much larger than most European countries.

I am guessing that if this was done right and in the spirit of re-establishing a prosperous, innovative, creative, just, and benevolent nation that puts human liberty first and foremost in importance, there could be a lot of interest out there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

And all this time I had been searching in vain for a very long definition of the word "buzzkill."

In her defense, Foxy did say that this was merely a hypothetical, nothing more.

Furthermore, there is always room for improvement within the US Constitution. For this very reason, amendments are allowed, and Thomas Jefferson encouraged that the Constitution be renewed every 19 years.

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice as the sole authority on any subject; and clearly not everything they thought or believed was appropriate, accurate, or desirable – including Jefferson.

 

[Foxfyre]

They have lobsters the size of your leg in Mexico.

True they haven't yet grasped the meaning of "Ham and Eggs". Their idea of a slice of ham is a wafer thin slice about a tenth the thickness of a piece of bacon. When ordering Hamon and Huevos make sure you order at least a dozen Hamons.

Also it escaped them on how to prepare beef. Huge steaks..but they don't cut off the fat or let the meat relax before serving. Again with the thinness. These faults could easily be fixed!

Just sayin...

Thread topic please. Let's don't derail the focus with other things.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think most of us would prefer to stay right where we are, so annexation of others who liked what we accomplish could be a possibility on down the line.

Some seem to think the new nation--I'll call it New America to accommodate more than just the breadbasket states--will be made up of a few tiny parcels. Well, that would depend on how many like minded and freedom loving people are left wouldn't it? Just the few states I've mentioned as possibilities cover a land area much larger than most European countries.

I am guessing that if this was done right and in the spirit of re-establishing a prosperous, innovative, creative, just, and benevolent nation that puts human liberty first and foremost in importance, there could be a lot of interest out there.

But the USA already is a prosperous, extremely innovative, extremely creative, just and benevolent nation. And please list for me just one nation on earth where people have more liberties than we have right now. Good luck with that one.

Yepp, it's the word "re-establishing", I think, that put a massive monkey-wrench into your argument.

Of course, by Liberty, wouldn't that also be the liberty to marry the one whom you love?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

And all this time I had been searching in vain for a very long definition of the word "buzzkill."

In her defense, Foxy did say that this was merely a hypothetical, nothing more.

Furthermore, there is always room for improvement within the US Constitution. For this very reason, amendments are allowed, and Thomas Jefferson encouraged that the Constitution be renewed every 19 years.

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice as the sole authority on any subject; and clearly not everything they thought or believed was appropriate, accurate, or desirable – including Jefferson.

Very, very true.

It was the best possible compromise for that time in history.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

And all this time I had been searching in vain for a very long definition of the word "buzzkill."

In her defense, Foxy did say that this was merely a hypothetical, nothing more.

Furthermore, there is always room for improvement within the US Constitution. For this very reason, amendments are allowed, and Thomas Jefferson encouraged that the Constitution be renewed every 19 years.

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice as the sole authority on any subject; and clearly not everything they thought or believed was appropriate, accurate, or desirable – including Jefferson.

Nevertheless, they were able to discuss the issues and disagreements like grown ups and without fear, and they eventually were able to agree on compromises that allowed a Constitution to be signed and ratified.

I would like to think there are people now with the intellect and creative minds who could accomplish the same thing. Especially in a hypothetical discussion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think most of us would prefer to stay right where we are, so annexation of others who liked what we accomplish could be a possibility on down the line.

Some seem to think the new nation--I'll call it New America to accommodate more than just the breadbasket states--will be made up of a few tiny parcels. Well, that would depend on how many like minded and freedom loving people are left wouldn't it? Just the few states I've mentioned as possibilities cover a land area much larger than most European countries.

I am guessing that if this was done right and in the spirit of re-establishing a prosperous, innovative, creative, just, and benevolent nation that puts human liberty first and foremost in importance, there could be a lot of interest out there.

But the USA already is a prosperous, extremely innovative, extremely creative, just and benevolent nation. And please list for me just one nation on earth where people have more liberties than we have right now. Good luck with that one.

Yepp, it's the word "re-establishing", I think, that put a massive monkey-wrench into your argument.

Of course, by Liberty, wouldn't that also be the liberty to marry the one whom you love?

There is the dictionary definition of liberty and then there is the definition used by those who are don't like the dictionary definition of liberty.

The OP made that point in the Rules;

2. Words can mean different things to different people. Do not assume that a term used by one person means the same thing it means to another and be prepared to define the terms used in your argument.

 

[Faun]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

 

[Dot Com]

I am all for having fun with the topic guys, but one of the expressed rules in the OP is to stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, contributing information and asking questions.

What is your beef, Master Sergeant Fox??

One cannot not expect debate to be 'clean' or 'on topic' or to adhere to specific rules, qualifications, and guidelines when that 'debate' is initiated in bad faith with a premise that is factually wrong; in this case to maintain that the Constitution has been 'misinterpreted' or is in need of being 'cleaned up.'

Indeed, when one makes such blatantly wrong statements concerning the Constitution, its case law, and current Constitutional jurisprudence, she forfeits any expectation of 'debating now' in a manner subject to rules and guidelines, where those rules and guidelines are devoid of merit.

The Constitution exists now as intended by the Framers, interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution, as expected and desired by the Founding Generation of Americans who sought to be subject solely to the rule of law and a National government of their creation, supreme and immune from attack by the states, where the states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government.

^ that

OP presumes, or goes by what is said in her henpecked media outlets of a certain bent, that the Constitution has somehow been surreptitiously corrupted. It has, but not in the respects that she presumes. See: Citizens United

 

[Foxfyre]

I think most of us would prefer to stay right where we are, so annexation of others who liked what we accomplish could be a possibility on down the line.

Some seem to think the new nation--I'll call it New America to accommodate more than just the breadbasket states--will be made up of a few tiny parcels. Well, that would depend on how many like minded and freedom loving people are left wouldn't it? Just the few states I've mentioned as possibilities cover a land area much larger than most European countries.

I am guessing that if this was done right and in the spirit of re-establishing a prosperous, innovative, creative, just, and benevolent nation that puts human liberty first and foremost in importance, there could be a lot of interest out there.

But the USA already is a prosperous, extremely innovative, extremely creative, just and benevolent nation. And please list for me just one nation on earth where people have more liberties than we have right now. Good luck with that one.

Yepp, it's the word "re-establishing", I think, that put a massive monkey-wrench into your argument.

Of course, by Liberty, wouldn't that also be the liberty to marry the one whom you love?

Liberty within the social contract is what the people would choose to make of it. Some states would no doubt endorse and embrace gay marriage. Some would choose to retain the thousands of years old definition of marriage. Liberty allows both points of view to exist side by side.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

Well I watched a bit of Utopia and I am a student of American history. So I don't know how this "New America' is going to turn out if we manage to attract enough people with the will to get into the spirit of the discussion. Or those doing their damndest to derail it may prevail. We'll just have to see how it turns out.