Succession Threads: Merged

[nynco]

No not all the conservatives are extreme right wingers. But the party has lurched so far to the extreme that even Reagan would be considered a RINO.

If you guys had put an Eisenhower Republican (perhaps Huntsman) as your leader, you would not have Obama today. But you chose Romney...

[Teufelhund]

I understand you haven't been around here for a while. Your mistake is thinking all of us here are Romney supporters. There are quite a few of us around who didn't buy into the GOP's bullshit and are still quite aware that your candidate is an incompetent socialist with a proven record of failure. The GOP is largely to blame for the re-election of this turd, and you Liberal morons sped it along.

[nynco]

See I agree with you until.... you launch into the "socialist" demagoguery. Obama is to the right of Nixon on most all core issues.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...h_the_gop.html

[Teufelhund]

Nixon was a bag of shit. Why do you keep bringing him up as though he's someone any non-liberal holds in high regard? Obama is a fucking socialist. If you don't agree, you need to look the word up and compare it to some of his policies.

[Whistler]

Let's get this back on topic:

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . . He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone. . . . He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world. For imposing Taxes on us without consent. For depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by Jury. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny.

Sound familiar? Jefferson in support of secession.

Texas v. White (1869) ruled there is no legal right to secession and several states rewrote their constitutions subsequent to the Civil War precluding secession as a condition of suspension of Union military rule. Our country was formed on secession; from Great Britain, from the union created by the Articles of Confederation (only 9 of 13 states had ratified), several states were formed by secession from other states. Secession is an effort to allow multiple majorities to be satisfied where joined only one can be satisfied at a time. It's an attempt to leave peacefully when a large group feels the association is no longer in their best interest, a peaceful alternative to revolution not without precedent. The primary question I hear is one of legality however if you secede are you bound by the legality? Many disagree though it's my opinion the United States was formed as a compact of sovereign States joined voluntarily for the common good. As such I don't perceive it as a "death pact" that once joined can never be parted.

[Ronin13]

See I agree with you until.... you launch into the "socialist" demagoguery. Obama is to the right of Nixon on most all core issues.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...h_the_gop.html

Let me help you see the light- or at least attempt to, because we all know you can lead a horse to water...
1- "Fair share." This is a neo-socialist term, no ifs, no buts, nothing. Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share, but what's fair? You have some 35% (at last estimate) of Americans on some sort of government handout that have been on it for more than 18mos (no, this is not that 47%).
2- "You didn't build that." Kudos to the GOP for calling this out. Now, I know what Obama really meant by this, and no, he had it backwards- private enterprise creates a need for infrastructure, not the other way around. We wouldn't need roads, bridges, etc. if it weren't for private enterprise, but if they didn't exist, private enterprise still would.
3- "Progressive Socialism" as we're seeing as the neo-democratic ideal now spreading through this country (see: Occupy Movement, and many democrats ideology) is the idea that taking from the wealthy and giving to the needy is right and just. They see it as something that will work because so many people out there are struggling. The problem with this idea is that those who are struggling need prosperous employment. Those that opt not to seek prosperous employment or do not want it should not be encouraged by giving them free money, instead they should see that as "oh crap, I'm going to die if I don't get to work." This is why I'm not against unemployment, but I am against abuse of UI benefits. I'm not against welfare, but I am against abuse of welfare.
4- You keep pointing out terrible examples and continuous blame of Bush. This is why the right is so frustrated with the left. Flat out, and I'm sorry but the truth hurts- you're too damn stupid to see that while yes, recovering from "poor choice policies" like Bush's is not something that happens over night, but by now we should have seen a larger margin of improvement (for reference, take a look at Reagan's first term- by the end of it there was marked improvement). Sorry to bring up Reagan, I know how much you hate him and think he was bad (of course, only the terribly misinformed would actually believe that hostile rhetoric that Reagan cursed our nation).

[KevDen2005]

Really? Can you reference a line in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the secession of any State? Because I can't seem to find one.

Can you also reference the line that says I should pay for socialized health care. I am sure you probably can't. So the Constitution has been interpreted to say when written and signed that a state may not secede. Once a state has joined there will be no leaving the union. I believe we had a civil war that started about secession.

[Whistler]

Can you also reference the line that says I should pay for socialized health care. I am sure you probably can't. So the Constitution has been interpreted to say when written and signed that a state may not secede. Once a state has joined there will be no leaving the union. I believe we had a civil war that started about secession.

But which act was illegal the secession or the war? I suppose the victor is right? What do you make of the fact the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected language that would allow the use of Union force against a member state for failing to fulfill it's duties under the articles. Or the term "perpetual" was expressly omitted from the Constitution despite much of the Articles of Confederation being copied. If the Second Amendment assures the right of protection from tyrannical government through means of force but not through peaceful secession? The Union was formed by the states for their mutual benefit and was not initially ratified by all thirteen states, it makes no sense they would interpret the use of armed force against a member state that no longer felt they benefited from the union. Having just seceded from a government they considered oppressive it is absurd to consider the framers would have made the very act that allowed the creation of the Union illegal.

[KevDen2005]

But which act was illegal the secession or the war? I suppose the victor is right? What do you make of the fact the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected language that would allow the use of Union force against a member state for failing to fulfill it's duties under the articles. Or the term "perpetual" was expressly omitted from the Constitution despite much of the Articles of Confederation being copied. If the Second Amendment assures the right of protection from tyrannical government through means of force but not through peaceful secession? The Union was formed by the states for their mutual benefit and was not initially ratified by all thirteen states, it makes no sense they would interpret the use of armed force against a member state that no longer felt they benefited from the union. Having just seceded from a government they considered oppressive it is absurd to consider the framers would have made the very act that allowed the creation of the Union illegal.

I would disagree. I think it would still make perfect sense that you have the right to protect yourself and your family. You also have the right to stop a tyrannical government...and to put back in place the system the government is failing to support...secession is not the same thing. I'm also not necessarily arguing one way or the other. But pointing out the difference in protection and secession. Also pointing out in my original response that most Con-Law scholars would agree that once the Constitution was ratified that there would be no leaving the system, even though that thought didn't come until after the civil war.

[Whistler]

Not particularly vehement about it but think it's an interesting discussion. Until 1861 secession was accepted practice and some Con-Law scholars contend secession among the unenumerated or assumed "inalienable" rights. If a person has the inalienable right to control over himself, forced participation in a union he does not consider beneficial is servitude, as such the right to separate is inalienable as well and essential to the protection of other enumerated rights deemed inalienable such as life and liberty.