Why do so many conservatives support secession?

[kaz]

I still don't get this think where you think when you pay taxes someone owes you something. That isn't how taxes work. You pay them, government spends them, the money is gone.

What other taxes do you imagine government owes paying you back?

Because thats how the system works.

The system works that you pay taxes and they are gone. You're hallucinating that your paying taxes means that later you get something back later. That is NOT how the system works

It works that way everyday. Unless of course while I was sleeping they stopped all SS payments.

When you make SS payments, the government spends the money as it comes in as they do for other taxes. You aren't getting taxes you paid back, keep dreaming

So you're telling me they've stopped paying out SS?

I thought you were going to an independent Texas?

But no, they are taxing your children and giving you welfare. But you saved nothing, your money was spent as it came in like any other tax

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Please show me the exact section in the U.S. Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself and be the "referee" on what the Constitution "means and allows".

SOMEONE HAS TO BE the final arbiter of Constitutionality. It's not YOU, it's not the president, it's not the Congress, it is THE SUPREME COURT dumb-ass.

So why does the final arbiter have to be 9 UNELECTED judges?? According to the tenth amendment, the power to interpret the constitution rests with the states. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Self determination, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

That's not the issue. The issue is how can texas stop china if china invades. THINK

 

[ptbw forever]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Why would China invade?

Is China threatening to invade Spain? Texas has roughly the equivalent GNP to Spain. I don't reckon China has any interest in conquering Spain, do you?

Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP in 2012.

MisterBeale the below map you posted.

Austria is what, is that Washington State I think? What State is Norway on the below map, is that Virginia? What State is Switzerland on the below map? What State is Croatia on the below map? Also, what State is Argentina on the below map?

Norway is North Carolina. Croatia is Alaska. Switzerland is Pennsylvania, and Argentina is Massachutsetts

 

[Mr Natural]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Self determination, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

That's not the issue. The issue is how can texas stop china if china invades. THINK

By relying on the US Government and it's military to come to it's aid like every other third world shithole.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Self determination, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

That's not the issue. The issue is how can texas stop china if china invades. THINK

MAD

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Self determination, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

That's not the issue. The issue is how can texas stop china if china invades. THINK

By relying on the US Government and it's military to come to it's aid like every other third world shithole.

So Japan is a third world shithole?

 

[P@triot]

Please show me the exact section in the U.S. Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself and be the "referee" on what the Constitution "means and allows".

Holy smokes you are out of your fucking mind.

What you say is so fucking stupid, so detached from reality, so unworkable in real world that I don't even know where to begin to fix that kind of stupid.

SOMEONE HAS TO BE the final arbiter of Constitutionality. It's not YOU, it's not the president, it's not the Congress, it is THE SUPREME COURT dumb-ass.

You're so bat-shit crazy that you claim something which isn't even true and when challenged to prove it - you go off the cliff with anger because of the realization that everything you were trained to believe is false.

I'll ask again asshat - what section of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court power over the Constitution itself? It's a simple question.


(Psst....asshole....you claim is as bat-shit crazy as saying "someone has to be the ultimate arbiter of the 25mph speed limit". There is nothing that requires arbitration on a 25mph speed limit. It's written in black and white and it is the law. Idiot.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Self determination, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

That's not the issue. The issue is how can texas stop china if china invades. THINK

How will China invade Texas?

 

[AntonToo]

You're so bat-shit crazy that you claim something which isn't even true and when challenged to prove it - you go off the cliff with anger because of the realization that everything you were trained to believe is false.

I'll ask again asshat - what section of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court power over the Constitution itself? It's a simple question.


(Psst....asshole....you claim is as bat-shit crazy as saying "someone has to be the ultimate arbiter of the 25mph speed limit". There is nothing that requires arbitration on a 25mph speed limit. It's written in black and white and it is the law. Idiot.)

Dumbass, I've never stated that Judicial Review was explicitly worded in Constitution, what I claimed, and you could not address was that this how our system works and it is the only system that makes any fucking sense.

WHAT IS A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT?

WHO gets to have the final say on Constitutionality? Barack Obama? Paul Ryan? You maybe? Shall we put it up for a popular vote?

Time to quit your day dreaming, come down to planet Earth and propose something VIABLE.

 

[JWBooth]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Self determination, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

That's not the issue. The issue is how can texas stop china if china invades. THINK

How will China invade Texas?

And why? To what end?. Southeast Asia, sure. The oilfields of central Asia, makes sense. To expend the effort and expense to try to invade Texas. Silly notion.

 

[P@triot]

You're so bat-shit crazy that you claim something which isn't even true and when challenged to prove it - you go off the cliff with anger because of the realization that everything you were trained to believe is false.

I'll ask again asshat - what section of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court power over the Constitution itself? It's a simple question.


(Psst....asshole....you claim is as bat-shit crazy as saying "someone has to be the ultimate arbiter of the 25mph speed limit". There is nothing that requires arbitration on a 25mph speed limit. It's written in black and white and it is the law. Idiot.)

Dumbass, I've never stated that Judicial Review was explicitly worded in Constitution, what I claimed, and you could not address was that this how our system works and it is the only system that makes any fucking sense.

WHAT IS A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT?

WHO gets to have the final say on Constitutionality? Barack Obama? Paul Ryan? You maybe? Shall we put it up for a popular vote?

Time to quit your day dreaming, come down to planet Earth and propose something VIABLE.

There is no "final say" requiresd on the U.S. Constitution - anymore than there is a "final say" required on a 25mph speed limit.

The Constitution says what is says - the only people who feel it needs "interpreting" are idiot libtards who hate how it prevents them from oppressing others.

 

[AntonToo]

There is no "final say" requiresd on the U.S. Constitution - anymore than there is a "final say" required on a 25mph speed limit.

The Constitution says what is says - the only people who feel it needs "interpreting" are idiot libtards who hate how it prevents them from oppressing others.

Retard, if there is no final authority, how can anything ever get resolved then?

Government: it's Constitutional.

Citizen: Nuh-uh man, I don't think so.

Government: it's constitutional.

Citizen: Well I'm telling you it is not, look at the text.

Government: We have, it's Constitutional.

Where does this end without anyone having the authority to settle this dispute?? it is a fundamentally nonsensical, dis-functional proposition.


You live in a magical, uncomplicated world where anything that pops into your head goes, unburdened by reality.

 

[Afterword]

Supreme Court of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"SCOTUS" redirects here. For other uses, see Scotus (disambiguation).
Supreme Court of the United States

Established 1789 (1789)
Country United States
Location Washington, D.C.
Coordinates

38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444Coordinates:

38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
Composition method Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized by United States Constitution
Judge term length Life tenure
Number of positions 9, by statute
Website www.supremecourt.gov
Chief Justice of the United States
Currently John Roberts
Since September 29, 2005
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States of America

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.


The power of judicial review
Early in its history, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the judicial power granted to it by Article III of the United States Constitution included the power of judicial review, to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a State or Federal law. According to this jurisprudence, when the Court measures a law against the Constitution and finds the law wanting, the Court is empowered and indeed obligated to strike down that law. In this role, for example, the Court has struck down state laws for failing to conform to the Contract Clause (see, e.g., Dartmouth College v. Woodward) or the Equal Protection Clause (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education), and it has invalidated federal laws for failing to arise under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (see, e.g., United States v. Lopez).

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm super-conservative but i don't get it. If Texas secedes and china decides to invade the state, who is gonna stop them?

Why would China invade?

Is China threatening to invade Spain? Texas has roughly the equivalent GNP to Spain. I don't reckon China has any interest in conquering Spain, do you?

Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP in 2012.

Do you know why China supports North Korea?

One simple reason. They don't want the US on their doorstep. Having US troops in Japan and South Korea is bad enough, having them on their border is even worse, so they prevent it happening.

If China could invade a country next to the US, it would. Right now they don't have the strength to do so. However with somewhere like Mexico they're more likely, now, to use diplomatic means. But Texas might be a different matter.

Using a cost/benefit analysis, they would have nothing to gain.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Retard, if there is no final authority, how can anything ever get resolved then?

This has been explained to you before. Each state is final authority (in that state) on what the federal constitution means. That's what the tenth amendment says.

There is no final authority for the whole country on what the constitution means. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

WHAT IS A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT?

The tenth amendment says judicial review rests with the states. THINK

 

[AntonToo]

The tenth amendment says judicial review rests with the states. THINK

State courts...deciding Federal Law's Constitutionality?? Did you spend a lot of time thinking that one out?

Tell me, does Kansas or New York get to rule on constitutionality of ACA? Or does Constitutionality depend on which state you are in?

 

[P@triot]

There is no "final say" requiresd on the U.S. Constitution - anymore than there is a "final say" required on a 25mph speed limit.

The Constitution says what is says - the only people who feel it needs "interpreting" are idiot libtards who hate how it prevents them from oppressing others.

Retard, if there is no final authority, how can anything ever get resolved then?

Government: it's Constitutional.

Citizen: Nuh-uh man, I don't think so.

Government: it's constitutional.

Citizen: Well I'm telling you it is not, look at the text.

Government: We have, it's Constitutional.

Where does this end without anyone having the authority to settle this dispute?? it is a fundamentally nonsensical, dis-functional proposition.


You live in a magical, uncomplicated world where anything that pops into your head goes, unburdened by reality.

Retard, if there is no final authority, how can anything ever get resolved then?

Police Officer: That speed limit says 25mph

Dumb-ass libtard driver antontoo: I'm a libtard. Words have no meaning to me. I make them up as I go. Therefore, I've decided that 25mph is just a "suggestion". It's ok to drive 45mph through here as I was doing.

Police Officer: Uh....no. That's not how it works. It clearly says on the sign Speed Limit. No speed minimum. Not Speed suggestion. Not Speed Idealistic. Word have meaning. Limit has a meaning. It's written in plain English and doesn't require "interpretation".

Dumb-ass libtard driver antontoo: Well as I stated - I'm a libtard. Words don't have a meaning to me. That's my story anyway. It's how I can attempt to justify twisting the laws into what I want them to be rather than what they are.

Police Officer: Thankfully for society - you opinion doesn't trump the law. Here's a speeding ticket. Have a nice day.

Do you realize now how insanely stupid you sound? If not - grab an adult and ask them to read this to you.

 

[P@triot]

I've never stated that Judicial Review was explicitly worded in Constitution, what I claimed, and you could not address was that this how our system works and it is the only system that makes any fucking sense.

So you're finally admitting that you're just making up the role of the Supreme Court. Thank you. If the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly grant it as a power to a branch of the federal government - then it doesn't exist. Want proof? Unlike you - I can back up what I say with actual facts.

10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thanks for playing, you bat-shit crazy liberal who just makes shit up as he goes. It's been fun but it is clearly over now. The facts show you're an unhinge liberal lunatic with no respect for the law or authority unless you're the one with authority making the law.