Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bronn

Citizens of multiple states create online petitions to secede from the US.

254 posts in this topic

Really? That's the first time I've heard that one. :cool: The USA is not a true republic or true democracy but thanks for trying to enlighten me.

You are right; things have just gone to hell in a hand basket these last hundred years.

What with those child labor laws increasing the cost of production. Allowing those emotional women with their crazy ideas to vote like they were actually men! Eliminating the Jim Crow laws so those darkies can vote without being intimidated or strung up. That socialist Medicare keepin' old codgers around long past their productive years and that damn FDR commie Social Security keepin' 'em out of poverty to boot. It's all unconstitutional, I tell ya!!!!

Don't even get me started on OSHA, trying to legislate safety in the work place, driving up manufacturing costs just to prevent a few workers from dismemberment and death! Not like there aren't plenty of unemployed people out there to replace the casulties. How about that freakin' socialist EPA, forcing us to drink clean water and breathe fresh air? If that stuff is so important to ya, why don't you move to Canada already? The Feds should just stay in Washington DC where they belong. Let the states take care of their own business. Go states rights! Speaking of business, why don’t they just let the private sector sort it all out? They are always more efficent than government, amiright?

Man, you have really opened my eyes twylyght! Our flawless founding fathers must be rolling in their graves right now!

Tell ya what, we need to get back to the true intent of the Constitution, one gentrified white land owner/one vote! No doubt, Romney would have won for sure then! Man, we could've gotten back to the serious business of business. Reliving the golden age of our fore fathers from a century ago! A time when no one ever dared to question the white man's exclusive franchise on running this great country!

Yep, those were the days!

Hey, when you get back to that perfect time in the earlier 20th century, please inform President Wilson and congress that they don't know what they're talking about either. On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.” Four days later, Congress voted to declare war. What a bunch of dummies! If they had only voted to make the world safe for republics, everything would have worked out so much better. :abe:

http://wiki.answers....and_a_democracy

Jim Crow laws were instituted in spite of the Constitution, not to enforce it.

Second Bill of Rights bears a lot more commonality with the pillars of Communism rather than a democratic Republic.

The EPA largely defeats the purpose for which it was supposedly designed

The Commerce clause was designed to resolve interstate disputes and regulate interstate trade, not make it mandatory

If you would like to start comparing government to the private sector, why don't you start with market investment vs social security investment, the fed vs the gold standard, British health care being hailed as the model while most living with it have to invest in supplemental health care if they want anything worth a damn, Canadian health care sponging off the US necessarily to make their system viable, corruption of farming subsidies, IRS with a track record of criminalizing single mothers as they've been targeted for monies from failed marriages, Dewey's continually failed public education system when compared to their private counterparts (see Chicago's teachers making enough to send their own kids to private schools), elected federal politicians never sending kids to public schools, federal politicians not electing to live off the same medical care as what they are about to mandate, federal politicians not electing to abide by any of the rules that they mandate for that matter, governmental cronyism at the bidding of the private sector benefactors to squeeze out small business counterparts, government's reliance on private sector's goods for military munitions, goods, and services.... you want more?... cause it's nearly endless.

And Woodrow Wilson is hardly the argument for a support of a Constitutional government. The ballpark that would be in would be far closer to socialism than a representative republic. Still think it's a democracy? Do a search for the word in the Constitution. Then do a quick search for "republic". Specifically, check Article IV Section 4 and let me know what you find.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you assume I'm a republican when that is far from the case.

Actually, you are assuming I'm assuming you're a Republican.

Saying that the Constitution is a living document in the way that you say it is wrong. It is a living document in that it can be amended. Nothing more. To insinuate anything else is simply to assert your own values where they don't exist otherwise. This is what has become of precedent as we know it today. If it has anything to do with the Constitution, it is only by chance.

You can repeat that all you want, it's still wrong. Going all the way back to Marshall.

Were the Constitution actually upheld, it would have NOTHING to do with marriage at all. It would only be held to the standards of consensual contracts of living together and nothing more. No licenses needed to get married. No restrictions on whome you can marry. The document was designed with an inherent distrust of centralized governmental power given its many rules on what the federal government CANNOT do rather than what it CAN do.

No. The constitution WAS upheld, & it stopped certain STATES from putting restrictions on my marriage.

Yet another failed attempt to paint me as something that I am not.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you are assuming I'm assuming you're a Republican.

You can repeat that all you want, it's still wrong. Going all the way back to Marshall.

No. The constitution WAS upheld, & it stopped certain STATES from putting restrictions on my marriage.

How so?

You're the one that insinuated that I started this because "my guy lost". No assumptions there... you said it outright.

You can repeat what you wish all you want. The Constitution is pretty plainly written. You'll find next to nothing in that document suggesting what you are asserting. The Federalist Papers were pretty thorough in their discussions on the matter as well.

There is NO mention of marriage in the Constitution. Following that document means that the federal government has no basis for making any ruling on the institution of marriage until there is an amendment saying otherwise (which would be contrary to its original underpinnings). It can aid in rulings regarding domestic contract disputes but nothing more. It simply is not allowed (not that it's stopped all kinds of impropriety)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the one that insinuated that I started this because "my guy lost". No assumptions there... you said it outright.

I "insinuated" something I said "outright"? Where?

The Marshall court says different.

That's akin to saying "There's no mention of planes in the constitution so we shouldn't use them in defense of the country".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I "insinuated" something I said "outright"? Where?

The Marshall court says different.

That's akin to saying "There's no mention of planes in the constitution so we shouldn't use them in defense of the country".

You are just bad at the game of brigand and umbrage... or maybe you are simply that dense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody that wants to secede should be labeled terrorist and shot on site. That is just my opinion. There is no way those who want to secede from the Union, would do it in a peaceful manner. Ft Sumter ring a bell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody that wants to succeed should be labeled terrorist and shot on site. That is just my opinion. There is no way those who want to succeed from the Union, would do it in a peaceful manner. Ft Sumter ring a bell?

Lol you sound like DHS. Call me a terrorist and pull the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody that wants to secede should be labeled terrorist and shot on site. That is just my opinion. There is no way those who want to secede from the Union, would do it in a peaceful manner. Ft Sumter ring a bell?

does blockade ring a bell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just bad at the game of brigand and umbrage... or maybe you are simply that dense

Awww... Would you like me to walk you through it?

Ok, first off, you can't insinuate something that you've said outright because insinuating is hinting at something strongly without saying it outright.

Now then, as far as the signing petitions because your guy didn't win thing, unless Obama is your guy... I'm right. Now maybe you've held this thought that your state should secede for a while now but i haven't seen you trying to get people to sign on for that here.

The Marshall court? Are you going to deny that's when the USSC established itself as the final word on what is & isn't constitutional?

Planes? An extreme example to be sure, but you said Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution thus the the federal government should not have gotten involved. The point stands...

but if you don't want to deal with that feel free to point out where the constitution mentions secession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you were saying is pretty plain for anyone with reading comprehension. Don't be stupid. There's no doubt that there are people that simply ranting because it is no longer themselves ruling unconstitutionally. I've offered no such evidence of being one of them.

The steam that has gained in the past decade is undeniable with respect to the light that has been shining on Constitutional principals. People are absolutely more cognizant today of the unconstitutionality of governance compared to 3 decades ago. That trend shows no signs of plateauing or slowing. The only thing that can stop the reasonable discussion is apathy and/or willful ignorance. Those are still abundant in the US and may well continue to the end of the country, but that wall has yet to be met with respect to said trend.

As far as the USSC being the final word on what is Constitutional, why would they feel the need reverse positions if they are infallible? Given the choice between the word of an authority and the source itself, I'll choose the latter, thank you.

Lastly, you are working under the operative that if something is not mentioned in the Constitution that it is automatically under the purview of the federal government. Those OPPOSITE is true if anything. Upon its writing, we had JUST COME FROM yet another government in history that sought to indenture its citizens to the will of the ruling class. The revolution that happened came from the notion that citizens did not exist to serve their government, but the opposite. The purpose of the service of a Constitutional government was to ensure/protect the rights of its citizens.

The 18 enumerated powers were spelled out in the Constitution to provide a framework to carry these duties out. At every turn that Hamilton and others argued a federalist argument, Madison and others resoundingly put such notions down in the Federalist Papers. Who better to know what the words meant than the guys that wrote them?

That said, it was written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government"

The fact remains that the condition for ratifying the constitution at all by many states' delegates was a right to secession. Virginia laid their legal rights out with their decision to secede very clearly. What we've all been taught is revisionist history written with a propagandist's intent. It is why critical thinking has become such a rare commodity these days.

The good news is that the idea of asking "taboo questions" has become exposed for all kinds of reasons. Some of it is the natural tendency of individuals to feel like they are bucking a trend, some of it a natural consequence of hitting the wall of too much anomalous information in the face of the current paradigm, some of it a seen opportunity for some that have sought to exploit it to raise the awareness. For whatever the reason, the discussions are playing out for the informed and coming out in favor of liberty for those of us that still hold that as a value.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, democracy was definitely not upheld as a moral system by the founding fathers. At least not en masse. Jefferson in particular was very wary of democracy.

America was founded as a constitutional representative republic, which is very different from a social democracy (which presidents like Woodrow Wilson have moved it toward).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites