Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Aloysius]

when I say you can't be arrested for breaking a precedent, what I meant is that you're always arrested for breaking some law that was legislated.  precedent governs the way those laws are interpreted and applied, but I view the laws as legislated as the legitimate laws, and the precedents set by courts as something I can either agree or disagree with as to whether they are properly carrying out the legitimate laws of the land.  that's what I would mean by whether I felt something was legal or illegal, it would depend on whether I feel that the elected representatives have legislated for or against it.

 

How judges, police, et cetera, enforce, interpret, and apply those laws doesn't change what I recognize as legal or illegal, it just changes how I need to negotiate with the men with guns.

 

I hold that the state legislature has the same right to rescind the constitution that it did to ratify it.  I don't actually endorse any state doing so, for a number of reasons, but I believe that in theory they legally have that right.  I also believe that the Lakotah Nation has every legal right to withdraw from its treaties with the Federal Government on the basis that the Federal Government has consistently broken those treaties.  The State Department doesn't recognize that right, but I hold that it would be legal (probably should be done by the elected tribal government rather than the awesome rogue group that included Russel Means in 2008, but I always had a soft spot for their little stunt and wished it the best).  That is what I hold to be the existing law, I recognize that it is unlikely and judge or court would enforce the law that way, just like I recognize that in Texas vs White they set a precedent against secession.  I hold that those are misinterpretations of the actual law of the land, I therefore recognize no law against secession for any state, or for any tribal nation, there is no such valid law IMO.  And if a state or a tribal nation were to secede from the Union, I would not recognize the Supreme Court as competent to judge that matter anyway, as soon as a legislature has rescinded the ratification of the constitution, it has left the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as they can only decide domestic questions, not international ones outside of the jurisdiction of the United States (the only reason Texas found itself back within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was after having been violently conquered).

 

Incidentally, Justice Grier's dissent in Texas v. White actually did compare Texas to Native American tribes, and argued that the judiciary had no right to decide whether Texas had been a state or not especially since Congress had determined, in his opinion, that it was not.  Ultimately, you had a conquering nation's supreme court determining that the territory it had just conquered had never actually left its jurisdiction.

[Winchester]

http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_5.pdf

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

love the nature/natural world/caves,flora and fauna etc etc...in an agape kind of way of course. You don't have to love everything humans do there.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_5.pdf

 

Did i forget to tell you i love you. You have never proven me otherwise or i forgot already that you proved me otherwise lol.

 

JESUS iz LORD

Edited February 4, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Socrates]

That's actually not what Roe said.  Not that one would expect you to actually have read the case which you surely denounce as 'flagrant judicial activism'

 

In actual practice, that was the result of Roe.  After the ruling, abortion became legal in all states, for any reason.  Specifically, Roe v. Wade declared abortion to be a "constitutional right," which the states could not interfere with.  

 

Never mind that there is no "right to abortion" to be found anywhere in the Constitution.  (And, yes, I've heard of the "Emanations of the Penumbra" nonsense, and it is absolute hogwash - and piss-poor pathetic hogwash at that.)  

Not that one would expect you to actually have read what the Constitution says, nor care about it.

[Socrates]

A lot of people get away with screwball behavior because there is no precedent establishing that what they've done has broken the law. A lot of people go down for screwball behavior because a prosecuting attorney is able to point to some obscure precedent establishing that in the past what they've done was considered illegal.

 

In this case the precedent is not obscure.  The precedent is emphatic: secession is treated as an illegal rebellion, secessionists are punished as traitors with imprisonment or death.

 

Precedent can be overturned. Dred was overturned because of the convulsions of the Civil War - the single most important event shaping how America sees herself and talks about herself today.  If you are going to change the legal precedent around secession - one established by the greatest blood sacrifice in the national history and championed by the greatest saint of the civic religion - lets just say you are going to need a bigger boat.

 

But by all means discuss the woulda coulda shoulda's till your blue in the face.

 

By your own logic, there is no point in we helpless peons of the all-powerful State discussing or debating the rightness or constitutionality of anything the government does.

 

 

No, we simple peasants must quietly and unquestioningly accept the inherent rightness of everything the almighty federal government does, and continue peacefully grazing like the docile sheep we are.

[Fidei Defensor]

By your own logic, there is no point in we helpless peons of the all-powerful State discussing or debating the rightness or constitutionality of anything the government does.

 

 

No, we simple peasants must quietly and unquestioningly accept the inherent rightness of everything the almighty federal government does, and continue peacefully grazing like the docile sheep we are.

 

Dramatic much?

[Socrates]

Dramatic much?

 

Your face.

[Fidei Defensor]

Your face.

 

Can't argue with that.

[4588686]

In actual practice, that was the result of Roe. After the ruling, abortion became legal in all states, for any reason. Specifically, Roe v. Wade declared abortion to be a "constitutional right," which the states could not interfere with.
t it.

Also incorrect. Maybe you should read the actual ruling.

[KnightofChrist]

Also incorrect. Maybe you should read the actual ruling.

The effect of the ruling, it being put into practice, is not the same as the actual ruling. Things on paper rarely completely mirror the effect of it being put into practice.

[KnightofChrist]

You're arguing with members of that society.

Welcome to fantasy land--here's your unicorn,

 

We also don't think women who leave their husbands should be murdered. Crazy, I know.

Forbidding secession would require an amendment. That's according to strict constitutionalism. No power to prevent secession was delegated to the states, and the states were never forbidden in the document from seceding. 10th amendment.

 

Of course, we have drug prohibition without an amendment, so we're clearly not dealing with a government that cares about its limits.

 

"Perpetual" means the agreement has no expiration date. It doesn't mean parties may never withdraw from the agreement.

 

I cannot think of any contact that would not only bind the parties that signed it, but generations of the descendants of the signers, other than perhaps slavery. If states cannot freely leave as they freely joined is that not some form of slavery? I would believe it would be a form of slavery. It makes more moral sense that this perpetual contract has not expiration date, rather than it perpetually binding generation after generation to a contract their very dead and gone ancestors signed hundreds of years ago.

[Winchester]

I cannot think of any contact that would not only bind the parties that signed it, but generations of the descendants of the signers, other than perhaps slavery. If states cannot freely leave as they freely joined is that not some form of slavery? I would believe it would be a form of slavery. It makes more moral sense that this perpetual contract has not expiration date, rather than it perpetually binding generation after generation to a contract their very dead and gone ancestors signed hundreds of years ago.

 

One could compare it to a land title, but that only applies to the parties that actually enter into the agreement. I never signed the Constitution, and the vast majority of people never signed the Constitution. The parties to the agreement have violated the Constitution numerous times. When there is a contract dispute between parties, it is not one of the parties who has exclusive rights to review the meaning of the contract (this is the current argument--that the Federal government decides when it has violated the Constitution).

 

 

[4588686]

One could compare it to a land title, but that only applies to the parties that actually enter into the agreement. I never signed the Constitution, and the vast majority of people never signed the Constitution. The parties to the agreement have violated the Constitution numerous times. When there is a contract dispute between parties, it is not one of the parties who has exclusive rights to review the meaning of the contract (this is the current argument--that the Federal government decides when it has violated the Constitution).

 

 

 

 

You're adding provisions to the contract that aren't in the text.  The constitution does not present itself as an agreement between equals.  

[KnightofChrist]

You're adding provisions to the contract that aren't in the text.  The constitution does not present itself as an agreement between equals.  

 

Then I suppose it is a form of slavery. 

[Winchester]

You're adding provisions to the contract that aren't in the text.  The constitution does not present itself as an agreement between equals.  

 

Right, it presents itself as a compact, with the Federal government as a creature of the people through the states.

 

I delegate duties to my subordinates. The Federal government was delegated powers. Let's let that sink in, shall we?

 

 

http://jim.com/treason.htm

Edited February 5, 2013 by Winchester