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.
Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are all war criminals who deserved to be hanged. They are also traitors according to the Constitution.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Sounds like what the rebels were doing, with their attacks on American forts and seeking the aid of foreign powers.
Excuse me Vernon
But once South Carolina seceded from the union Fort Sumter became a South Carolina Fort , ie, it was not an "American Fort".
.
The whole idea of every state getting 2 senators is pretty shaky in the first place.
You apparently missed this part of the series in the above:
and the Laws of the United States
there I made it bigger for you. The Supremacy Clause is not just about 'treaties' and whatever you're blathering on about nonsensically.
The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land.
In the constitution, the term "the United States" does not refer to the federal government. It refers to the states collectively. The laws of the United states are the laws of all the states. If you don't believe it, then look at the clause about treason. It defines treason as making war against them [the states]. It does not mention the federal government.
You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?
But that means the people are what's important, not the lines.
"Important" to whom? Your response is meaningless blather.
My response makes perfect sense. I asked what makes states important, she replied with a statement about the people living in those states, to which I replied it's the people that are important, not the states.
You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?
But that means the people are what's important, not the lines.
"Important" to whom? Your response is meaningless blather.
My response makes perfect sense. I asked what makes states important, she replied with a statement about the people living in those states, to which I replied it's the people that are important, not the states.
"Important" to whom? Your response is meaningless blather.
My response makes perfect sense. I asked what makes states important, she replied with a statement about the people living in those states, to which I replied it's the people that are important, not the states.
No, Brain Trust. Learn to read EVERYTHING, not just the parts that you think you can twist into what you want.
My reply regarded the people AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY FORM. The lines on the map, which you mistakenly believe to be what makes a state, are merely representations of what the state actually is, aka a community.
Slavery and Woodrow Wilson are the only things that come close. Woodrow Wilson was temporary and therfore doesn't qualify in the grander scheme. Slavery is a reprehensible evil, in 1776 if the founders had not compromised on it, there would never have been any United States. I'm not defending it, just stating the facts as they existed. I wish it could have been otherwise and this stain was not a part of our history, I'm glad we ended it and as always the price of liberty is blood. Since it's inception the 17th amendment had done more permanent harm to liberty than any other thing has.Removing the voice of the states from our federal government was the worst mistake we ever made.
-Slavery
-Near holocaust of the Indian tribes
-Occupation of the Phillipines
-Electing Woodrow Wilson
-The Spanish Flu Pandemic
Yeah, not the worst mistake we ever made. Not even close.
I do think its about time for another Constitutional Convention to address some of the issues that have arisen. I could see revisiting the role of States in the overall picture as one of those issues. I've long been an advocate of block granting many of the subsidies down to the State level to allow them the power to administrate those programs as they see fit.
What makes a state is no different than what makes a nation. It is governed by the law of nations. If you claim it, you govern it and you defend it, it is yours.My response makes perfect sense. I asked what makes states important, she replied with a statement about the people living in those states, to which I replied it's the people that are important, not the states.
No, Brain Trust. Learn to read EVERYTHING, not just the parts that you think you can twist into what you want.
My reply regarded the people AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY FORM. The lines on the map, which you mistakenly believe to be what makes a state, are merely representations of what the state actually is, aka a community.
The lines on the map are what makes a state. The states do not represent an organic community of interest. People living in Arlington, Virginia has much more in common with the residents of Silver Springs, Maryland than they do with the residents of Blacksburg.
The lines on the map are what makes a state. The states do not represent an organic community of interest. People living in Arlington, Virginia has much more in common with the residents of Silver Springs, Maryland than they do with the residents of Blacksburg.
My response makes perfect sense. I asked what makes states important, she replied with a statement about the people living in those states, to which I replied it's the people that are important, not the states.
No, Brain Trust. Learn to read EVERYTHING, not just the parts that you think you can twist into what you want.
My reply regarded the people AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY FORM. The lines on the map, which you mistakenly believe to be what makes a state, are merely representations of what the state actually is, aka a community.
The lines on the map are what makes a state. The states do not represent an organic community of interest. People living in Arlington, Virginia has much more in common with the residents of Silver Springs, Maryland than they do with the residents of Blacksburg.
The whole idea of every state getting 2 senators is pretty shaky in the first place.
That's because you New Yorkers want to be treated like the Übermensch of Wyoming.
The whole idea of every state getting 2 senators is pretty shaky in the first place.
That's because you New Yorkers want to be treated like the Übermensch of Wyoming.
I would NY to split into 5 states: Long Island, NYC, Hudson Valley, Adirondack, Central, and Western.
10 senators and they'd still each represent more people than the ones in Wyoming do.
The lines on the map are what makes a state. The states do not represent an organic community of interest. People living in Arlington, Virginia has much more in common with the residents of Silver Springs, Maryland than they do with the residents of Blacksburg.
The similarity between those two communities is purely an accident of history.. Both are overpopulated with tics sucking off the taxpayers due to their proximity to that great milch cow of taxpayer money, Washington D.C.
The residents of Dallas Texas, on the other hand, couldn't be more different. For instance, they don't actually run away screaming from the prospect of hard work like the residents of the two communities you mentioned.
No, Brain Trust. Learn to read EVERYTHING, not just the parts that you think you can twist into what you want.
My reply regarded the people AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY FORM. The lines on the map, which you mistakenly believe to be what makes a state, are merely representations of what the state actually is, aka a community.
The lines on the map are what makes a state. The states do not represent an organic community of interest. People living in Arlington, Virginia has much more in common with the residents of Silver Springs, Maryland than they do with the residents of Blacksburg.
Like all drawings, a map is a REPRESENTATION of reality, not reality. The lines on the map REPRESENT where the boundaries of the state are. They are NOT "what makes a state".
You need to look up the histories of how the states took on the shapes they have, and why, so that perhaps you might understand that they ARE communities, which chose to form around common interests, whatever their individual components might be geographically close to.
And someone really needs to explain the difference between pictures and reality to you.
That's because you New Yorkers want to be treated like the Übermensch of Wyoming.
I would NY to split into 5 states: Long Island, NYC, Hudson Valley, Adirondack, Central, and Western.
10 senators and they'd still each represent more people than the ones in Wyoming do.
But that wouldn't be fair to Wyoming, because we all know that if empty land doesn't get a vote, liberty has crumbled.
I would NY to split into 5 states: Long Island, NYC, Hudson Valley, Adirondack, Central, and Western.
10 senators and they'd still each represent more people than the ones in Wyoming do.
But that wouldn't be fair to Wyoming, because we all know that if empty land doesn't get a vote, liberty has crumbled.
Oddly enough, if the NY split were made roughly along the lines I just suggested, the 5 new states would as likely as not have more Republican Senators than Democrats.
But you're right, this isn't really a country of We the People, it's We the square mileage.
In the constitution, the term "the United States" does not refer to the federal government. It refers to the states collectively. The laws of the United states are the laws of all the states. If you don't believe it, then look at the clause about treason. It defines treason as making war against them [the states]. It does not mention the federal government.
You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?
Firstly, the right to life and to defend the same are UNALIENABLE.
Secondly, have you ever heard of the blackmarket? Not even your friends at the KGB were able able to control it.
So STFU.
,
But that wouldn't be fair to Wyoming, because we all know that if empty land doesn't get a vote, liberty has crumbled.
Oddly enough, if the NY split were made roughly along the lines I just suggested, the 5 new states would as likely as not have more Republican Senators than Democrats.
But you're right, this isn't really a country of We the People, it's We the square mileage.
You know, we could really maximize freedom by amending the Constitution so that every county has two senators.
