253 replies to this topic

[BBQ&Beer]

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?

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.

The Marshall court says different.

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)

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".

[twylyght]

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

[Bullethead527]

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?

[CatofWar]

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.

[twylyght]

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?

[BBQ&Beer]

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.

[twylyght]

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.

[King]

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).

[King]

[FurdTurgason]

Sometimes I wish this country would split in two. Let the liberals live the way they want to and the conservatives the way they want to. Unfortunately the geography wouldn't work as the liberal half would be all split up. I really think the conservative half would thrive, though. Wouldn't take the stupid rednecks long to realize they'd be better off in the liberal states.

[awdeansr]

removed post

[cookinwithgas]

I remember when all these yahoos wanted to secede because the Patriot Act was passed, good times

[Gazi]

Sometimes I wish this country would split in two. Let the liberals live the way they want to and the conservatives the way they want to. Unfortunately the geography wouldn't work as the liberal half would be all split up. I really think the conservative half would thrive, though. Wouldn't take the stupid rednecks long to realize they'd be better off in the liberal states.

lolz

Welfare queen states would never secede
And no, I'm not talking about the states kicked our asses in the last Civil War

[Gazi]

[twylyght]

I remember when all these yahoos wanted to secede because the Patriot Act was passed, good times

it was no less legitimate then as it is now. same story as it always is with government. good intent with horrible consequences due to poor foresight, severely low competence, and outright corruption.

as many politicians are fond of today, "let no good crisis go to waste"