JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
The libers and extremists are fun to watch, stamping their widdle feet with red-rimmed widdle eyes, all a'fumin. Screw em if they can't handle it.
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.
The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the constittuion give them that authority. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says in Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in violation of the constitution and void.
Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a war. In no way did they want the federal govt put above the states.
So are FDR, Wilson and LBJ.Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.
Secession is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and the president and Congress have the authority to enforce it.
Wrong.
Actually, you're wrong and NYcarbineer is correct, secession is un-Constitutional. See:
Texas v. White
We don't need corrupt judges telling us what to do.The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the constittuion give them that authority. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says in Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in violation of the constitution and void.
Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a war. In no way did they want the federal govt put above the states.
Good luck getting any court to agree with you.
Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.
How is this working out for the states who have chosen to allow medicinal Mary Jane?
Not well. Federal jackboots will swoop in and confiscate products and revenue from state allowed businesses.
Like I said, the ratification of the constitution took away the states ability to have authority over their territory. The supreme law, laid bby federalists, make the determination on state laws. In short, the states are ceremonial, just like congress is quickly becoming ceremonial.
The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the constittuion give them that authority. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says in Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in violation of the constitution and void.
Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a war. In no way did they want the federal govt put above the states.
Good luck getting any court to agree with you.
Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.
Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.
Actually, you're wrong and NYcarbineer is correct, secession is un-Constitutional. See:
Texas v. White
Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.
It doesnt make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of rebellion.
Actually, you're wrong and NYcarbineer is correct, secession is un-Constitutional. See:
Texas v. White
Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.
It doesnt make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of rebellion.
Secession, the only answer. LOL
That's what the civil war was really about - the right to scede. America was founded on that right. I'd like to see all the states west of the mississippi secede, excepting CA of course.
Secession is treason.
Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.
It doesn’t make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of ‘rebellion.’
If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?
Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.
Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.
Your philosophy politically is phantastical, son, and you did not have the right to your own facts and definitions. You are not relevant, period. Just the way it is.
Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.
It doesnt make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of rebellion.
If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?
It doesnt make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of rebellion.
If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?
Lincoln believed so, Johnson believed so, but the Radical Republicans said the southern states (other than TN) had to "reconstructed" and repentant and make restitution before they could be readmitted to the Union.
And, actually . . . secession is treason.
It doesn’t make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of ‘rebellion.’
If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?
It could be argued that the answer is because the Civil War surpassed the threshold of "rebellion" and into "revolution."
Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.
Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.
Your philosophy politically is phantastical, son, and you did not have the right to your own facts and definitions. You are not relevant, period. Just the way it is.