Secession Movement Explodes

[poncho]

>>Originally Posted by billwald
>>Half the Articles of Confederation no longer apply. The NATO Charter could be easier to apply to a North American Treaty Organization comprised of 50 sovereign states.

>Which half?

Offhand, those that apply to the interim federal government and the transition to the new government.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Most people knowledgeable about global events are aware of The Earth Charter. However, what most people do not know is that the principles of this charter could be enacted into the law under which we live! You think not? Most American mayors are members of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which on June 25, 2001, passed a resolution stating that the conference "endorses the Earth Charter and commits the organization to the realization of its aim." This means YOUR mayor has probably agreed to this! [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]First, the charter indicates we would live under Socialism, as one of its goals is to "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations." Second, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would become law, as the charter "affirms gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development" (note the word "equity" rather than equal opportunity). Third, population control (eugencis and abortion) would be legal, as 2 charter goals state: "Adopt patterns of reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities" and "Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction." Fourth, education (including values and school-to-work) would be internationalized, as the charter proposes to "integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life" and "recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living." [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]CONTINUE . . .[/FONT]

READ THE EARTH CHARTER compare it to the CONSTITUTION

We need to secede from the United Nations!
​

 

[Jack Matthews]

Okay :thumbs:

Just keep in mind there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Those who are saddened by the fact of our federal government disregarding the constitution (and who still believe in the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence) fall into the first category. Those who think America is still the end-all-be-all (regardless of rapidly diminishing liberties at home) and can do no wrong (domestically or abroad) are in the latter.

You're asserting a "fact" that doesn't exist. Where had the federal government disregarded the constitution? What liberties have been "diminished" at home? Proof please, not just your opinion of such.

The viral stampede for secession has now reached a crescendo, with residents of all 50 states filing petitions with the White House calling to withdraw from the United States and form new governments independent of federal control.

Viral "stampede"? It's such a small fraction of the population, it hasn't reached 1%. And succession is a constitutional violation. It is not a state's right. The courts settled that issue in 1865.

It's whining because the majority of the electorate didn't vote the way these people expected, and they believe all this crap that's been spread around by right wing extremists on talk radio. It is unpatriotic, uninformed whining. It will come to nothing.

 

[poncho]

Viral "stampede"? It's such a small fraction of the population, it hasn't reached 1%. And succession is a constitutional violation. It is not a state's right. The courts settled that issue in 1865.

It's whining because the majority of the electorate didn't vote the way these people expected, and they believe all this crap that's been spread around by right wing extremists on talk radio. It is unpatriotic, uninformed whining. It will come to nothing.

Be careful now your ignorance is showing. :smilewinkgrin:

1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. The Tenth Amendment says: "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." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.

3. Secession is treason/unAmerican/craaaazy/for slavers only. Prior to the confederacy, there were some slaveowners who got together and seceded from their government. They were called Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If you're opposed to the secession of 1776, then that's fine, you might be consistent on this issue, but if you're one of these right-wing pundits who thinks the Declaration of Independence should be read aloud every July 4, and then says that secession is nutso, you might try actually reading that document you profess to love.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82714&page=2

You're asserting a "fact" that doesn't exist. Where had the federal government disregarded the constitution? What liberties have been "diminished" at home? Proof please, not just your opinion of such.

Here's my proof Jack. Go read the U.S. Constitution. Then go read the NDAA, the Military Commissions Act, and the Patriot Act(s) and compare them. Then show me where the U.S. Constitution delegates the power to the executive branch to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate U.S. citizens without due process of law.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Here's my proof Jack. Go read the U.S. Constitution. Then go read the NDAA, the Military Commissions Act, and the Patriot Act(s) and compare them. Then show me where the U.S. Constitution delegates the power to the executive branch to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate U.S. citizens without due process of law.

Exactly.

 

[Salty]

Originally Posted by billwald
Half the Articles of Confederation no longer apply. The NATO Charter could be easier to apply to a North American Treaty Organization comprised of 50 sovereign states.

Which half?

Offhand, those that apply to the interim federal government and the transition to the new government.

Most of the Constitution of the CSA was taken from the US Constitution

 

[Salty]

Liberal talk show hosts such as Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz tell us that the people spoke in a landslide victory for Obama and that we should accept that.

Well if any state or commowealth votes to secede, - by a majority popular vote- then should not the liberals have to accept that?

I could see it now, Texas leaves the Union - takes away all welfare from illegal aliens - cuts give-a-way programs for legal citizens - all those folks would migrate to other States - putting a bigger burden on what remains the United States.

Salty

PS Oh, one other thing - Obama DID NOT win by a landslide. Maybe these college educated left-wing nuts should learn the definition of a landslide

 

[LadyEagle]

El Pasoans Petition To Leave Texas
By ABQnews Staff on Thu, Nov 15, 2012
[Print-Friendly Version]
[Email This Story] view comments
POSTED AT: 5:40 am

A petition has been started on the White House’s “We the People” website to allow the city of El Paso to secede from the state of Texas, El Paso television station KVIA ABC-7 reported....

 

[Jack Matthews]

Be careful now your ignorance is showing. :smilewinkgrin:

1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. The Tenth Amendment says: "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." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.

3. Secession is treason/unAmerican/craaaazy/for slavers only. Prior to the confederacy, there were some slaveowners who got together and seceded from their government. They were called Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If you're opposed to the secession of 1776, then that's fine, you might be consistent on this issue, but if you're one of these right-wing pundits who thinks the Declaration of Independence should be read aloud every July 4, and then says that secession is nutso, you might try actually reading that document you profess to love.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82714&page=2

Here's my proof Jack. Go read the U.S. Constitution. Then go read the NDAA, the Military Commissions Act, and the Patriot Act(s) and compare them. Then show me where the U.S. Constitution delegates the power to the executive branch to indefinitely detain and/or assassinate U.S. citizens without due process of law.

You better go back and read about Supreme Court interpretations and precedents of law. The courts have determined, on multiple occasions, the definition of powers assigned to the federal government or left to the states. In and among the many determinations the court has made, the legal path to secede from the union is not a power left to the states. The constitution permits citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. These petitions are submitted to the executive branch of government. A minimum number of signatures is required for the White House to hear the petition. The power to grant the request, or to turn it down, is exclusively vested in the executive branch. Once turned down, it cannot be refiled in the same form.

Following the Civil War, in several court cases, Texas v. White being one of the most notable, the Supreme Court declared that the secession of Texas was illegal on the grounds that the state could not establish itself as an independent entity, but since it joined the union in 1845 had been part of an "indestructable union." This applies to the other states which attempted to secede from the union, and the ruling is precedent, applying to all other states. There is also the case of West Virginia, in which the court ruled that a state can be partitioned, and that other states can be created out of their territory in the event of an attempted rebellion against the union, and the portion of the state which is partitioned can be admitted to the union as a separate state. There is a provision for partitioning and creating five states out of the territory of Texas.

The only thing this petition for secession movement is doing is showing the rest of the country what a bunch of whiny babies they are. This is how we do things. If you don't like the results of an election, you have a couple of options. You can wait for the next one and participate, or you can get out.

The Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to review any laws of the land and declare them constitutional or unconstitutional. It's called the "balance of power." If those laws and acts you mentioned were not consistent with the constitution, the court can declare them unconstitutional. As far as I know, they've reviewed them and they think otherwise. That's the way our republic works.

 

[poncho]

You better go back and read about Supreme Court interpretations and precedents of law. The courts have determined, on multiple occasions, the definition of powers assigned to the federal government or left to the states. In and among the many determinations the court has made, the legal path to secede from the union is not a power left to the states. The constitution permits citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. These petitions are submitted to the executive branch of government. A minimum number of signatures is required for the White House to hear the petition. The power to grant the request, or to turn it down, is exclusively vested in the executive branch. Once turned down, it cannot be refiled in the same form.

Following the Civil War, in several court cases, Texas v. White being one of the most notable, the Supreme Court declared that the secession of Texas was illegal on the grounds that the state could not establish itself as an independent entity, but since it joined the union in 1845 had been part of an "indestructable union." This applies to the other states which attempted to secede from the union, and the ruling is precedent, applying to all other states. There is also the case of West Virginia, in which the court ruled that a state can be partitioned, and that other states can be created out of their territory in the event of an attempted rebellion against the union, and the portion of the state which is partitioned can be admitted to the union as a separate state. There is a provision for partitioning and creating five states out of the territory of Texas.

The only thing this petition for secession movement is doing is showing the rest of the country what a bunch of whiny babies they are. This is how we do things. If you don't like the results of an election, you have a couple of options. You can wait for the next one and participate, or you can get out.

Oh tough guy huh? :laugh:

Maybe you need stronger glasses. So I'll make it bigger this time.

Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

If you don't like the idea of living in a constitutional republic then maybe you are the one who needs to get out of here. And take your communofascist friends with you we don't want em or need around here anymore. :wavey:

 

[Salty]

Poncho,

I agree with most of what you were quoted in on post #28, but I think its more of the left wing liberal pundits who think we are not permitted to secede.

 

[poncho]

Poncho,

I agree with most of what you were quoted in on post #28, but I think its more of the left wing liberal pundits who think we are not permitted to secede.

Yeah me too especially after what this Jack Matthews fellow had to say.

Hey do me a favor will ya Salty will you enlighten this guy to the fact that I haven't been happy about the results of the last four or five elections and it has nothing to do lefties vs righties.

I just can't stand having one commie/fascist after another running this country into the ground while their little knot headed groupie minions fight over which of the two anti American parties has more right be the bankster's prostitutes. People are signing these petitions because they are sick and tired of both parties and their third rate tyrants who keep posing as "leaders".

 

[Jack Matthews]

Oh tough guy huh? :laugh:

Maybe you need stronger glasses. So I'll make it bigger this time.

Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

If you don't like the idea of living in a constitutional republic then maybe you are the one who needs to get out of here. And take your communofascist friends with you we don't want em or need around here anymore. :wavey:

And your point is?

The Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government SET UP BY THE CONSTITUTION and vested with powers of the CONSTITUTION. It is the sole body with authority to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION and as such, its rulings determine the meaning of THE CONSTITUTION.

So if you don't like the idea of submitting to the authority of the CONSTITUTION, why don't you move to Mexico? You can have a government that hands the wealthiest 1% whatever it wants, by robbing the remainder of the population, starve the government to make it impossible to enforce the law, and live under the protection of whatever drug cartel you can pay to provide it for you. You won't have to worry about a federal government, or a state government for that matter, and as long as the cartel's thugs get your money, you're free. That's the kind of country you seem to want. Why not hit the trail today?

 

[poncho]

And your point is?

The Supreme Court is a branch of the federal government SET UP BY THE CONSTITUTION and vested with powers of the CONSTITUTION. It is the sole body with authority to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION and as such, its rulings determine the meaning of THE CONSTITUTION.

So if you don't like the idea of submitting to the authority of the CONSTITUTION, why don't you move to Mexico? You can have a government that hands the wealthiest 1% whatever it wants, by robbing the remainder of the population, starve the government to make it impossible to enforce the law, and live under the protection of whatever drug cartel you can pay to provide it for you. You won't have to worry about a federal government, or a state government for that matter, and as long as the cartel's thugs get your money, you're free. That's the kind of country you seem to want. Why not hit the trail today?

Man you just can't help putting your ignorance on display can you?

What part of "the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to say what powers the federal government is allowed to have" don't you understand?

The constitution was written to limit the federal government's power not to give the federal government the power to grant itself unlimited powers. There'd be no point in having a written constitution if it was. There'd just be a piece of parchment declaring the United States a tyrannical monarchy or evil dictatorship instead of a constitution. :BangHead:

 

[Jack Matthews]

Name calling and large print isn't going to help you win your argument. Obviously, given the way you are addressing the issue, and your favorable view of secession, you're a "my way or the highway" kind of person, incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion. This isn't coming to anything, and whining about who won the election and how far away from your private interpretation of the constitution they are is of no consequence. Go ahead. Whine. Sign petitions. Have a good time doing it.

 

[poncho]

Name calling and large print isn't going to help you win your argument. Obviously, given the way you are addressing the issue, and your favorable view of secession, you're a "my way or the highway" kind of person, incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion. This isn't coming to anything, and whining about who won the election and how far away from your private interpretation of the constitution they are is of no consequence. Go ahead. Whine. Sign petitions. Have a good time doing it.

It might help if you had some idea of what it really means to be an American Jack.

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and so you're just repeating all the liberal talking points and then accusing others of acting like you when it doesn't go your way. Go back and read the words you posted. You are trying to pin your own behavior on me.

That's neither rational nor intelligent Jack. The constitution was written so anyone could understand it. Neither the supreme court nor Lincoln deleted the tenth amendment.

Here's the 10th's text I suggest you read it over and over until it's plain meaning sinks in.

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.

Then when that finally sinks in go look up Marbury vs Madison and read that till it sinks in.

 

[Salty]

Fact - the Constitution does not prohibit secession
Fact - the SCOTUS has ruled secession is not permitted
Fact - the SCOTUS can
......A) reverse it's ruling
......B) be overturned by Congress

 

[poncho]

I think Jack just come here looking for a fight. He assumed I was one those disgruntled Romney supporters. Evidently he's all pumped up because his dictator "won" over the republican's dictator.

It'll do you no good to try and rub salt in my wounds Jack. I didn't support either party's dictator. I supported the Republic and defended it's civil constitution against both like I always do.

That's something you lefties and righties will never understand. It's not about winning an election it's about defending the United States from the tyrants no matter which party they belong too.

That's what real American patriots do Jack. Real patriots don't act like spoiled children and thumb their noses at losers because when tyrants like Obama or Romney win we all become losers.

 

[Aaron]

Name calling and large print isn't going to help you win your argument. Obviously, given the way you are addressing the issue, and your favorable view of secession, you're a "my way or the highway" kind of person, incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion. This isn't coming to anything, and whining about who won the election and how far away from your private interpretation of the constitution they are is of no consequence. Go ahead. Whine. Sign petitions. Have a good time doing it.

Dude, you came to a gun fight with a spit wad. :type:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yeah me too especially after what this Jack Matthews fellow had to say.

Hey do me a favor will ya Salty will you enlighten this guy to the fact that I haven't been happy about the results of the last four or five elections and it has nothing to do lefties vs righties.

I just can't stand having one commie/fascist after another running this country into the ground while their little knot headed groupie minions fight over which of the two anti American parties has more right be the bankster's prostitutes. People are signing these petitions because they are sick and tired of both parties and their third rate tyrants who keep posing as "leaders".

all right :thumbs: now your talkin my language!:applause:

 

[saturneptune]

It is worth repeating, if one does not like the concept of fifty states in a union, planes leave everyday.