National Sovereignty

[buckeye45_73]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

 

[BULLDOG]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

No it doesn't.

 

[buckeye45_73]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't what?

 

[Fenton Lum]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't what?

I think he decided your "topic" is a waste of time. I concur.

 

[MisterBeale]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't what?

He's saying it doesn't drive the Democrats crazy.

But we know it does. In fact, it drives the whole fucking globalist establishment insane, neo-cons included.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americans do not disagree with Hunter's point: we are sovereign.

The point is that we won't let those who think like bucky tell us, the great majority, that they are in charge of who comes in.

We all get to say, and, bucky, if you are in the minority on this, tough.

 

[Godboy]

Americans do not disagree with Hunter's point: we are sovereign.

The point is that we won't let those who think like bucky tell us, the great majority, that they are in charge of who comes in.

We all get to say, and, bucky, if you are in the minority on this, tough.

Well, who DONT you want to come in?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Americans do not disagree with Hunter's point: we are sovereign.

The point is that we won't let those who think like bucky tell us, the great majority, that they are in charge of who comes in.

We all get to say, and, bucky, if you are in the minority on this, tough.

Well, who DONT you want to come in?

Perhaps some feel that should be based upon an individual case by case basis as opposed to flat categorizations. How 'bout you, who DONT you want to come in?

 

[Godboy]

Americans do not disagree with Hunter's point: we are sovereign.

The point is that we won't let those who think like bucky tell us, the great majority, that they are in charge of who comes in.

We all get to say, and, bucky, if you are in the minority on this, tough.

Well, who DONT you want to come in?

Perhaps some feel that should be based upon an individual case by case basis as opposed to flat categorizations. How 'bout you, who DONT you want to come in?

Then you must be against Mexicans crossing the border illegally, since you lose the option to it make a case by case basis when people illegally cross the border in droves. That means you agree with ME.

To answer your question, i dont want one single person crossing the border who isnt doing it legally. Do you disagree with my position? If so, youre a waffling hypocrite who just says whatever he thinks will win him the argument in that moment. The problem with doing that, is you can easilly wreck your own position, like you just did. So now you either agree with me, or you are proven to be a hypocrite. Take your pick.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Americans do not disagree with Hunter's point: we are sovereign.

The point is that we won't let those who think like bucky tell us, the great majority, that they are in charge of who comes in.

We all get to say, and, bucky, if you are in the minority on this, tough.

Well, who DONT you want to come in?

Perhaps some feel that should be based upon an individual case by case basis as opposed to flat categorizations. How 'bout you, who DONT you want to come in?

Then you must be against Mexicans crossing the border illegally, since you lose the option to it make a case by case basis when people illegally cross the border in droves. That means you agree with ME.

To answer your question, i dont want one single person crossing the border who isnt doing it legally. Do you disagree with my position? If so, youre a waffling hypocrite who just says whatever he thinks will win him the argument in that moment. The problem with doing that, is you can easilly wreck your own position, like you just did. So now you either agree with me, or you are proven to be a hypocrite. Take your pick.

To answer your question, i dont want one single person crossing the border who isnt doing it legally. Do you disagree with my position?

Nope. See how easy that was?

 

[SwimExpert]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

Actually, the most conservative position is that the states alone are sovereign. So.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have national sovereignty with states' rights elevated to the degree that conservatives would have them.

 

[MisterBeale]

You can't have national sovereignty with states' rights elevated to the degree that conservatives would have them.

So?

Do you have a point?

Germany is a state. France is a state. Russia is a state.

Get on with it already.



Conservatives just don't care for super states, federalized super bureaucracies that can't know what the needs of local people are. They are inherently wasteful when they become more interested in the needs of the pols., bureaucrats, corporations and interests that run them rather than the constituents that vote for the representatives sent to the national capitals.

Surely if you have studied history, all the classical examples should teach you this. From the Roman Empire, to the Greek and Mayan confederations, to even the EU. Once power is shifted too much from the constituent states to the Federal capital in D.C., our Republic and our freedom, our sovereignty, and this experiment in representative government is will thus be in jeopardy.

Sovereignty, in it's most basic form, rests in the family.


Why do you think the intellectual, cultural, and government elites will do anything to weaken and destroy the family? They want to subvert the very foundations of nature, where the anthropological core of humanities sovereignty lay. If you analyze human societies, from the individual, to the family, to the tribe, all government gets it's legitimacy from the family.

If the government can destroy the family, it need not worry any more about competing for the minds of children for it's sovereign authority.

 

[MisterBeale]

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/de...al-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672

This article, so true.

Actually, the most conservative position is that the states alone are sovereign. So.....

Well. . .truthfully, the MOST conservative (or classically liberal if you prefer) position is that the individual alone is sovereign. It's the principle that the revolution was fought on. The government gets it's authority based on the just rights of the governed, not based upon the right of a sovereign king.

In this instance, the Federal capital in D.C. is making immigration policy for the several states, determining who should have the right to enter and immigrate to local communities. I think this would be a violation of the tenth amendment. No where in the Constitution does it give the congress power to open borders of the several states, or restrict immigration.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well. . .truthfully, the MOST conservative (or classically liberal if you prefer) position is that the individual alone is sovereign.

Actually, no. That's neither conservative nor classically liberal. It's just plain fuckery, born from ignorant obtuseness.

It's the principle that the revolution was fought on. The government gets it's authority based on the just rights of the governed, not based upon the right of a sovereign king.

No, moron. The Revolutionary War was fought over the principle of taxation without representation. You may have missed it, but Magna Carta placed actual governing power with Parliament, not the Monarch. When the colonies rebelled it wasn't because they objected to constitutional monarchy, or even monarchy in general. They objected to the levying of taxes by a Parliament in which they held no representation.

In this instance, the Federal capital in D.C. is making immigration policy for the several states, determining who should have the right to enter and immigrate to local communities. I think this would be a violation of the tenth amendment. No where in the Constitution does it give the congress power to open borders of the several states, or restrict immigration.

The constitution itself opens the borders of the states, and grants to Congress the authority to set rules for opening the borders of the federal nation-state. Please use more education next time.

 

[SwimExpert]

Germany is a state. France is a state. Russia is a state.

Get on with it already.

Actually, all three are federal nation-states. So what's your point?

Conservatives just don't care for super states, federalized super bureaucracies that can't know what the needs of local people are.

You mean, like Germany, France, or Russia?

 

[Theowl32]

Here come the stupid left wingers to tell us all about the Redskins and their land. While they continue to live in their gated communities, never even hinting at giving up their home to some Redskin who for some reason did not need to build adequate defenses to defend their territory like every other territory in the world.

Do you know left wingers are so stupid that they think the Natives never had war over land until round eyed pale face showed up on the shores with a musket and a bible?

 

[MisterBeale]

Well. . .truthfully, the MOST conservative (or classically liberal if you prefer) position is that the individual alone is sovereign.

Actually, no. That's neither conservative nor classically liberal. It's just plain fuckery, born from ignorant obtuseness.

It's the principle that the revolution was fought on. The government gets it's authority based on the just rights of the governed, not based upon the right of a sovereign king.

No, moron. The Revolutionary War was fought over the principle of taxation without representation. You may have missed it, but Magna Carta placed actual governing power with Parliament, not the Monarch. When the colonies rebelled it wasn't because they objected to constitutional monarchy, or even monarchy in general. They objected to the levying of taxes by a Parliament in which they held no representation.

In this instance, the Federal capital in D.C. is making immigration policy for the several states, determining who should have the right to enter and immigrate to local communities. I think this would be a violation of the tenth amendment. No where in the Constitution does it give the congress power to open borders of the several states, or restrict immigration.

The constitution itself opens the borders of the states, and grants to Congress the authority to set rules for opening the borders of the federal nation-state. Please use more education next time.

I can see you do well regurgitating your statist history. Very fine job. I'll not disagree with your POV. It basically restated, in another way, what I just said. What you were doing was dealing with empirical issues, not the philosophy behind them though.

I was talking about the political philosophy subtext.

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf

What is the argument of ch. 18?

Chapter 18 is devoted to showing that there is a kind of contradiction between two things:

1. wanting to have a stable, peaceful society governed by an effective sovereign.
2. contradicting anything listed in chapter 18, that is, either denying the sovereign any of the rights listed there (especially the three listed in the next section) or giving subjects rights not listed there.

In Hobbes’s opinion, that was exactly the combination of attitudes held by a crucial part of the governing classes in England that led to the Civil War. For instance, some of them thought they could have the state while limiting its powers to raise taxes: they reserved that power for Parliament, where they were pre-eminent.


Who or what is the sovereign?

There are two ways of identifying the sovereign. The sovereign in a society is a person or body of persons who:

1. has been given the right of governing through the social contract. (Lev. ch. 17, par. 13).
2. has the three “marks” of sovereignty, namely, control of the military, ability to raise money, and control of religious doctrines. (Lev. ch. 18, par. 16).

Obviously, these can come apart. Someone who hasn’t been given the right of governing in the social contract may seize the three essential rights of sovereignty. In fact, that is exactly what happened in the civil war, according to Hobbes. If you read his history of the war, Behemoth you’ll see a distinction between the de facto sovereign and the de jure sovereign which correspond to the first and second ways of identifying the sovereign. When King Charles I was captured, he remained the de jure sovereignty while the army was the de facto sovereign.
Hobbes on sovereignty

 

[MisterBeale]

Germany is a state. France is a state. Russia is a state.

Get on with it already.

Actually, all three are federal nation-states. So what's your point?

Conservatives just don't care for super states, federalized super bureaucracies that can't know what the needs of local people are.

You mean, like Germany, France, or Russia?

In the states we have county and city governments. I fail to see much difference. Sorry.

 

[SwimExpert]

Germany is a state. France is a state. Russia is a state.

Get on with it already.

Actually, all three are federal nation-states. So what's your point?

Conservatives just don't care for super states, federalized super bureaucracies that can't know what the needs of local people are.

You mean, like Germany, France, or Russia?

In the states we have county and city governments. I fail to see much difference. Sorry.

Wait...erm, what? Are you comparing county and city governments to the federal states of the above mentioned nation-states?