Heir,
First of all, give a Article in the Constitution that allows for succession. I agree with you about the swing states. Nine states were campaigned in basically. It was not the intent of the electoral college, but that is what has evolved. Obama could have spent every day and night in Kentucky, and he would have not had a chance. In fact in this state, the only time it becomes a swing is when a Democrat nominee is from the South, such as Carter and Clinton. Even then, it sometimes goes Republican.
Yes we are politically close except minor points. The whole thread would have been a good discussion except for one poster I will not name.
One point I would be interested in knowing your opinion on, is a Constitutional Convention for amending. Do you think succession would be possible through that process?
Of course....there is no article in the Constitution which "allows" for seccession....No reasonable "secessionst" would argue that there were.....Then again, there were no laws passed by the Parliament of Great-Britain and signed on to by the King of England which permitted any Colony of His Majesty or any collective of His Majestie's colonies to declare their Independence from British rule either...
We must be consistent..
I am arguing from the stand-point of the "consent of the governed"...It was an ideological war fought in the Revolution, and (believe it or not) it was an ideological war fought in the War Between the States, and it would be merely an ideological war now if a "secessionist movement" were to gain ground...It won't though...as too many of us are Government dependents....
The entire "swing-states" thing is incidental, and does not mean the system is inherently wrong.....I think the "electoral college" idea was ingenious.....but, I only bring it up because I think you are defending a Federal Government which is simply TOO powerful....and BTW...when it comes to the initial war our Nation fought over Secession....Do you claim they were "Un-Constitutional" to do so???? That is an Historically difficult position to defend....You can't make an "Argument from Silence"....Your demand that I provide:
First of all, give a Article in the Constitution that allows for succession.
Is a logically fallacious argument...It is an "argument from silence". The "Constitution" doesn't tell us that a man can't beat his wife either...No-where sir, is it written in our Constitution that you can't rape a 5-year-old virgin either....
There is NO Federal Law against beating a woman sir...
Believe it or not....there
shouldn't be either. A
Constitution is a document which outlines the
political theory of Governance...It doesn't spell out which
particulars of Law any given State signatory might impose...... There is no Federal Law against adultery either. There IS, however a LAW against it in the UCMJ........."Uniformed Code of Military Justice"...and the UCMJ is right to have it....But, guess what??? It would be "wrong" for the "Constitution" to have such a law.....
Why is "Roe vs. Wade" wrong????
Because, simply put, our Constitution no more guarantees a woman's "Reproductive Privacy" than the man in the moon.... It was a fake B.S. idea then, and it is a fake B.S. idea now....
Roe v. Wade was based on attrocious political theory:
It wasn't based on the Constitution...it was based on a previous Case "Ward v. Connecticut" (I think it was called) wherein the free and Sovereign State of Connecticut had outlawed contraceptives of any kind....and someone decided NOT to use the legitimate power of making a case of the issue, and decided to (rather than convince the people and by extension the Legislature of the State).... To deman that some random idiot in a Federal Court impose their Philosophy on that State...
Was Connecticut "wrong"?
Yes, but there was a "right way" and a "wrong way" to fix the situation...and those who worship the entrenched power of the "Feds"...acted wrongly...Connecticut was "stupid" to illegalize ALL forms of contraceptives...but it wasn't the Federal Governments job to rule against Connecticut either.....
So, I ask you...Where in the U.S. Constitution is is written that Connecticut can't have a relatively stupid law against all contraception, and where is is "written" in the Constitution that every woman has the right (without ANY PATERNAL consent) to slaughter their own progeny in the womb????
Dis-like it???? Than the only solution
might be secession....maybe not...but "Arguments from silence" don't work...
As I said before....much love, and I agree with you on the ultimate goals...I just think your politcal theory is off...God bless you brother:wavey:
We refuse to understand what the difference is between a
Constitution...and a body of
LAW:
They are not the same...
I would confidently tell you two things:
1.)It
should NOT be "un-Constitutional" to beat your wife
2.)It should be
Illegal to beat your wife
Both of those statements are true........
