Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Obama wins: Will Texas secede from the union?
BizPac Review ^ | Michael Dorstewitz

Posted on 07/15/2012 3:46:27 PM PDT by cap10mike

Could Texas once again become the Republic of Texas?

Without question, the Nov. 6 election will be a do-or-die, make-or-break, Rubicon-crossing event. If the presidential election goes one way, we get a “do-over.” We’ll be given the opportunity to take the first step on a long, arduous journey back to our political and economic roots. If it goes the other way, federalism and balance of power will continue to be edged out by an overreaching federal government and an imperial presidency. Socialism will have an unbreakable hold on the economy, and a centralized government, rather than a free market, will determine business’ winners and losers.

(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Miscellaneous; Politics
KEYWORDS: bho2012; election; obama; secession; texas; tx2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-407 next last
To: donmeaker
Usually the people who make your sort of argument end up arguing that the court does not apply to them because the fringe on the court’s flag shows it is an admiralty court, and thus as a civilian, they can’t be charged in admiralty court. That is to say your argument is frivolous.

My argument is frivolous because it "sounds like" something other people are claiming? Wow.

Are you the sort who would argue that jury nullification is illegal/illegitimate because it's not mentioned in [most] court's juror briefings?

351 posted on 07/20/2012 8:42:02 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative
Note, Article 3 section 2 below.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

So in the event of a controversy, the state is obligated by the constitution to resolve it, not by armed force, but by presenting its case to the Supreme Court. See you in court counselor.

352 posted on 07/20/2012 8:45:27 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

I read it, and it still does not expressly prohibit any state to secede. Until you can point me to that phrase or one like it, you’re wasting your time with your run around. The 10th Amendment is very firm on the matter. What is not prohibited by the Constitution is reserved to the States and to the People.

Found it yet?


353 posted on 07/20/2012 8:57:10 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Your argument is frivolous, as it is like other frivolous arguments in its frivolity.

When states are required to settle controversies in court, that means that they are required to settle controversies in court, not by pretending they don’t want to play any more. There is not a special power for “I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”. No such power can be reserved to any state, so long as you have a constitution.

As for the connection of the supreme court with the amendment process, the SCOTUS decides on the meaning of the texts, which texts have precedent, for amendments just as any other legal text. That is what it means to be a judge in a court room, or to be an appeals court judge, or a justice of the supreme court.

No, parties to the suit don’t get to decide what part of the law applies to them. If you have that, then you have no law at all, because, as we see here, parties or partisans will take the interpretation that favors their cause. The legal system takes that interpretation away from the parties, but leaves the parties or partisans with the opportunity to advocate their position. The Judge can select from the positions advocated, or can present his own position.

The wonderful thing is, when a court makes a decision that is not in line with a supermajority, the decision can be overridden by law or amendment, such as the 11th amendment with restored sovereign immunity to the states, or the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments.


354 posted on 07/20/2012 9:09:18 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Your argument is frivolous, as it is like other frivolous arguments in its frivolity.

Then please rephrase my argument; as your objection makes little sense in relation to my previous post.

When states are required to settle controversies in court, that means that they are required to settle controversies in court, not by pretending they don’t want to play any more. There is not a special power for “I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”. No such power can be reserved to any state, so long as you have a constitution.

Um, you do realize that that is exactly what the federal government is doing, no? (“I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”)

As for the connection of the supreme court with the amendment process, the SCOTUS decides on the meaning of the texts, which texts have precedent, for amendments just as any other legal text. That is what it means to be a judge in a court room, or to be an appeals court judge, or a justice of the supreme court.

That is not a part of the amendment process; that is applying the amendment. The two are totally different; that you cannot discern that casts much doubt onto the veracity of any of your assertions regarding law and jurisprudence.

No, parties to the suit don’t get to decide what part of the law applies to them. If you have that, then you have no law at all, because, as we see here, parties or partisans will take the interpretation that favors their cause.

Which is *gasp* what we see in federal courts regarding limiting government agents via 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendment suits.
Honestly, Kelo, Wickard, ACA and so forth show that the USSC is not immune to that power. (And if you assert Kelo as being good law I reserve the right to laugh you to derision: 'projecting' tax revenue-increases and using those imaginations as justification for filling the "public use" requirement of the 5th is simply ludicrous.)

The legal system takes that interpretation away from the parties, but leaves the parties or partisans with the opportunity to advocate their position.

Except in the case of the federal government, which sits on its own cases and tells everyone that they are under their decrees.

The wonderful thing is, when a court makes a decision that is not in line with a supermajority, the decision can be overridden by law or amendment, such as the 11th amendment with restored sovereign immunity to the states, or the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments.

"Objection, this assumes facts not in evidence."
Really? I point out evidence that the 14th is not actually valid and you use it in a description asserting your position?

A question assumes facts not in evidence if:
It presumes unproved facts to be true.
Example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" This question assumes that the person has beaten his wife.

355 posted on 07/20/2012 9:49:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Of course I cited the 14th Amendment as an example of the use of an amendment to correct or improve the constitution. That is because it was such, and it is such even if the crazy guy on the street asserted that because of the phase of the moon, and the color of his shoe laces that it is not valid.


356 posted on 07/20/2012 10:43:14 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I will once again point out that federal courts are not the same as the members of an agency that is directed to carry out policy. Thus the federal government is a party to the court, and the independent judiciary requires that positions be argued before it, with the representative of the government just another advocate.


357 posted on 07/20/2012 10:51:57 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: fahraint
Texas vs White was after 1861-1865.....the winner declared right through might.

The State of Texas itself said that its secession was a legal nullity. In other words, the State of Texas says it never seceded. Texas was not among the winners of the Civil War.

I'm not sure this means much to today's neo-Confederates, though.

358 posted on 07/20/2012 10:54:51 PM PDT by SSS Two
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Of course I cited the 14th Amendment as an example of the use of an amendment to correct or improve the constitution. That is because it was such, and it is such even if the crazy guy on the street asserted that because of the phase of the moon, and the color of his shoe laces that it is not valid.

So then that it did not garner the necessary ratifications from the states (3/4) is irrelevant?

Congressional Record:
Senate, 84th Con. 1st Session., Vol. 101, pp. 7119 to 7124;
Senate, 86th Con., 2nd Session., Vol. 106, pp. 4036 to 4038;
Senate, 89th Con., 1st Session., Vol. III, pp. 10669 to 10671.
That the states are on record as being under protest due being denied guaranteed representation is irrelevant? Link

Please note that the USSC asserts that the [accusation of the] replacing of the republics ["states"] "is a political question" and not actually a matter at law, even though the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.

A bill in equity filed by one of the United States to enjoin the Secretary of War and other officers who represent the Executive authority of the United States from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress on the ground that such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing state government of the state and establish another and different one in its place -- in other words, would overthrow and destroy the corporate existence of the state by depriving it of all the means and instrumentalities whereby its existence might and otherwise would be maintained -- calls for a judgment upon a political question, and will therefore not be entertained by this Court. -- Georgia v. Stanton

Again, you cannot simply say "because everyone says so" as a valid argument of correctness. That is as absurd as asserting that if every human were to declare God to be evil that God would suddenly become evil.

You are indeed entitled to your own opinions; you are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

359 posted on 07/20/2012 11:52:08 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "MD graveyards are full of Confederate Veterans.
Missouri supplied way more than 200,000 troops to the PACS."

Correct to the degree that some graveyards in both Maryland and Missouri hold Confederate veterans.
Indee, all the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland plus West Virginia and Delaware) sent troops to both Confederate and Union Armies.

But here are the numbers and sources I can find:


360 posted on 07/21/2012 12:08:49 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; donmeaker
OneWingedShark: "There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution.
Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it."

According to this site, as of 2003 every all 37 states in 1868 had radified the 14th Amendment.

361 posted on 07/21/2012 12:27:44 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
According to this site, as of 2003 every all 37 states in 1868 had radified the 14th Amendment.

Hm, Radified... as in to make radical? Or as in to make radiological?

362 posted on 07/21/2012 1:18:22 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The pretense that the 14th Amendment is not a fact. You are not entitled to that.


363 posted on 07/21/2012 2:11:41 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Lets try that again.

The pretense that the 14th amendment was not ratified is not a fact. You are not entitled to it.


364 posted on 07/21/2012 2:14:51 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

But you do have to give him partial credit - he did find a misspelling ;-)


365 posted on 07/21/2012 3:26:31 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The pretense that the 14th Amendment is not a fact. You are not entitled to that.

Again you fall back onto assertions.

Given the dealings with ACA (and fast & furious, and Solendra, and Raw-Milk raids, and LEO intimidation), and that human nature has not changed in the last four-thousand years, why should I assume that everything the government says is legitimate actually is legitimate?

That is, what is it that keeps the government from lying to me?

366 posted on 07/21/2012 3:40:39 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; donmeaker; OneWingedShark
rockrr: "But you do have to give him partial credit - he did find a misspelling ;-)"

Sorry for those multiple errors in a very short post. ;-(

The basic fact remains -- which seems to somehow elude OneWingedShark's intellectual grasp -- that every state which was a state in 1868 has now officially ratified the 14th Ammendment.

OneWingedShark: "...why should I assume that everything the government says is legitimate actually is legitimate?
That is, what is it that keeps the government from lying to me?"

The same things that help keep witnesses from lying on the witness stand: an oath to tell the truth, with associated punishments, hard evidence, cross examinations and opposing witnesses.
Ultimately, juries of experts and public opinions decide which assertions to accept or reject.

Of course, you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish.
But if you chose to reject as false established facts which most people hold true, then you eliminate any possibility of your arguments influencing their opinions, FRiend.

367 posted on 07/21/2012 7:05:28 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Thanks, I wrote it in haste just for this thread, and barely had time to proof it myself. I’m sure a real writer could do a much better job.


368 posted on 07/21/2012 9:12:43 PM PDT by LaserJock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

So let me get this right- All that is going on and you are going off about raw milk?


369 posted on 07/21/2012 9:31:38 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The basic fact remains -- which seems to somehow elude OneWingedShark's intellectual grasp -- that every state which was a state in 1868 has now officially ratified the 14th Ammendment.

Which means that, if there was some case decided using the 14th amendment prior to this ratification that it is illegitimate. That would be like the USSC deciding Obamacare was legal during its initial vote. Furthermore, the ratifications mentioned (recognizing the 14th as valid) may be fraudulent; that is, if the government put out that "everyone else accepts this" to each state individually, and then uses each state's individual answer as proof of consensus may indeed produce a different result than that of a straight and open yea-or-nay type of vote. This is especially true when the law in question is regarded as "settled law" by most people.

The federal government has lost its benefit of the doubt from me; I no longer think that "procedural irregularities" are aught but the practice of "might makes right" / "we're the government; you're not" type philosophies.

The same things that help keep witnesses from lying on the witness stand: an oath to tell the truth, with associated punishments, hard evidence, cross examinations and opposing witnesses.
Ultimately, juries of experts and public opinions decide which assertions to accept or reject.

Ah, like in Fast & Furious? Or Zimmerman?
No, there is objective good and evil and there is nothing keeping the government from committing great evil; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are all instances supporting this.

But if you chose to reject as false established facts which most people hold true, then you eliminate any possibility of your arguments influencing their opinions, FRiend.

Oy vey. You do not seem to grasp; I am trying to talk about a concept, of which the fraudulent passage of the 14th amendment (at that time), is an example.
Furthermore, that argument is exactly that used on anyone who is skeptical of AGW. Because AGW is settled science, based on a consensus of scientists.

370 posted on 07/22/2012 12:29:04 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
So let me get this right- All that is going on and you are going off about raw milk?

So then you think that the federal government is right to violently raid sellers of raw milk? Even if it's intrastate-commerce? What if the buyers own a share of the cow (i.e. co-op)?

Are you completely unable to think in any abstract manner? To go from the small/specific to the large/general? Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should; neither does the ability to do something indicate the moral desirability thereof.

371 posted on 07/22/2012 12:38:54 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Of course the federal government shouldn’t be going after raw milk producers. (All milk producers produce raw milk. some process it after that.) My grandfather drank raw milk till he was 92, and after that lost his ability to produce lactose.

It just isn’t were I would start my fight.


372 posted on 07/22/2012 1:09:13 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
It just isn’t were I would start my fight.

And that's one of the problems; everywhere anyone chooses to start is "the wrong place".

I've had a hell of a time trying to get any traction on a clearly illegitimate practice in NM regarding firearms. The NM Constitution is quite specific about arms:

Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
Now this obviously precludes things like, say, a state statute prohibiting guns on universities. But every time I brought it up I'd either get a redirection to some other entity, a justification ("we don't allow guns in courthouses"), and/or a misdirection ("it's private property"). {That last one is utterly inapplicable; the cited law is a state statute of which universities have no authority over.}

The "we don't allow guns in courthouses" is another insidious bit of misdirection. Notice that the State's Constitution says "no law shall" -- this means that the prosecution of such an infraction would actually be using a law to abridge the right of a "citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense." Furthermore, there is actually no such law in the State Statutes which prohibits firearms in courts; the second sentence utterly prohibits counties and municipalities from enacting ordinances. (Further, the USSC has repeatedly ruled that the police have no affirmative obligation to provide for the safety of any particular private citizen; this means that the depriving of anyone of arms is depriving the means to defend themselves... and therefore violating the cited constitutional passage.)

Also note, the mandated presence of an individual in a court proceeding is utterly independent from even being accused of a crime: jurors and witnesses are examples. Namely the prohibition of firearms in courts;

373 posted on 07/22/2012 2:09:55 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
OneWingedShark: "I am trying to talk about a concept, of which the fraudulent passage of the 14th amendment (at that time), is an example."

I'd say it's a poor example because, if I understand: you do not claim the 14th Amendment is invalid today, only that it may have been somewhat invalid at some particular point in the past?
And this is based on what?

So, when exactly would OneWingedShark officially declare the 14th Amendment passed?
And which exact laws or court rulings would you therefore declare invalid?
And what, precisely, would be the point of such an exercise?

OneWingedShark: "The federal government has lost its benefit of the doubt from me; I no longer think that "procedural irregularities" are aught but the practice of "might makes right" / "we're the government; you're not" type philosophies."

Well, of course, in politics the "might" of voting majorities can make a lot of dubious-seeming laws "right" constitutionally.
We saw that most recently in Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts' plaintive cry on Obama-care: that he can't protect voters from the consequences of their own foolish choices.
Indeed, this is precisely how for 100 years now liberal "Progressive" majorities have transformed our Founders' constitutionally Free Republic into a European style Socialist Democracy.

So what recourses do we have?
Well, first of all, we need to remember that by margins of two-to-one, more people consider themselves "conservative" (40+%) than "liberal" (20-%), so the rule of Liberalism over our Republic is not guaranteed or automatic.
We need first only remind self-confessed conservatives of what the word "conservative" means -- beginning with smaller, more constitutionally restricted Federal Government.

Second, we should remember that longevity in Washington office seldom makes politicians more conservative -- most find it easier just to go-along-to-get-along, and grow steadily more "big government Liberal" over time.
And there are actual quantitative measures of these things, so when our guys & gals fall below a certain level of conservatism, they need to be quickly replaced.

Finally, don't forget that enthusiasm plays a huge role in politics, and tends to flow in waves, waves that can sweep whole groups in and out of office.
So the trick is to stand fast when the "wave" crashes against us, while working to increase "waves" in Conservatives' favor.

OneWingedShark: "No, there is objective good and evil and there is nothing keeping the government from committing great evil; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are all instances supporting this."

It's a bit, ah, premature to compare your typical US politician to history's monstrosities.
None of ours fall into those categories.
Indeed, my point is precisely the opposite -- our politicians are still subject to some legal and constitutional restrictions, and still sometimes spend quality-jail time for enumerated infractions.

Yes, sadly, the number in jail should doubtless be much larger, but the fact remains that enough go to demonstrate that those folks are not free to do just anything they wish.
And yes, also unfortunately, so far as I can learn no politician has ever been jailed for voting too much "free stuff" for his or her constituents.

So, if we want less government, we just have to vote and keep voting for it.

OneWingedShark: "Furthermore, that argument is exactly that used on anyone who is skeptical of AGW.
Because AGW is settled science, based on a consensus of scientists."

It's another poor example, since despite endless claims of politicians like AlGore, AGW science is not "settled", it is in fact vigorously challenged by many recognized scientists.
Indeed, as it turns out, mere scientific facts of alleged global warming or "climate change" are irrelevant to Liberal-Progressive politicians who are merely looking for yet another excuse to grow yet more government -- and the more international the big-government, the better for their liking.

Bottom line: we have not yet lost this war, and should not act as if we did.
The Federal Government can still be reduced, controlled and restored toward something closer to our Founders' original vision, if but only if we take advantage of opportunities such as the one which seems to be coming this year...

374 posted on 07/23/2012 9:41:57 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The Federal Government can still be reduced, controlled and restored toward something closer to our Founders' original vision, if but only if we take advantage of opportunities such as the one which seems to be coming this year...

I assume you're talking about Congress and not Romney, because not much will change if Romney wins.

Come to think of it, not much will change with Congress if the GOP takes over. Remember, it was a Republican Congress who helped pave the way for things like the PATRIOT Act, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Agency, No Child Left Behind, etc.

Our best hope is to start booting out the incumbents who only care about winning the next election and feeding from the trough. Winning control of Congress is no longer good enough, it has to be Conservatives, not these Boehner and McConnell types.
375 posted on 07/23/2012 7:27:18 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
af_vet_rr: "Come to think of it, not much will change with Congress if the GOP takes over.
Remember, it was a Republican Congress who..."

Wrong. Everything will change when the GOP takes over -- which is not to say you will necessarily be pleased with every change, but everything now being promised will be delivered in some form, and that adds up to a big change.

And yes, of course, the fundamental problem of Conservatives getting corrupted by Washington is on-going, never-ending.
But there is a solution, albeit a difficult one, which is to measure these folks on various Liberal vs Conservative scales, and when our guys/gals start getting too liberally fat & happy, challenge & replace them.

It's the only reasonable way.
Anything else falls into the category of "throwing out the baby with the bath-water".

Not so smart, imho.

376 posted on 07/24/2012 8:16:52 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
And yes, of course, the fundamental problem of Conservatives getting corrupted by Washington is on-going, never-ending.

But there is a solution, albeit a difficult one, which is to measure these folks on various Liberal vs Conservative scales, and when our guys/gals start getting too liberally fat & happy, challenge & replace them.


It's a big problem just getting Conservatives to Washington in the first place. We have far too many RINOs who do a good job of keeping Conservatives out. The RINOs do a really good job of defending themselves in the primaries by claiming that they, and not Conservatives, are the only ones that can beat Democrats.

I agree with you on that point, we need to be willing to boot Republicans out and replace them with Conservatives.

Far too many Republicans in Congress only have their eyes on the next election and pleasing the lobbyists.
377 posted on 07/24/2012 5:32:28 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Good luck with that. Usually Judges can control their court rooms. If you find one that disagrees, you truly have “Kokura luck”.


378 posted on 07/24/2012 10:19:14 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
af_vet_rr: "The RINOs do a really good job of defending themselves in the primaries by claiming that they, and not Conservatives, are the only ones that can beat Democrats."

And such claims are not always false.
A recent memorable example was that conservative "witch" in Delaware with enough Tea Party support to defeat her RINO opponent in the primary, only to loose the general.

The truth is, we are a "right of center" country, overall, but just barely, and in many states or districts RINO is the best we could ever hope for.
So, are we better off with RINOs or Democrats?
Answer: if our leadership is truly conservative, then a few RINOs will help more than hinder.

As for replacing "Republicans" with "Conservatives", they should be more-or-less the same thing, and generally are -- certainly as compared to more Liberal-Progressive Democrats.
The biggest problem then is: how to find the most conservative Republican candidates possible for each district/state, and then after elections hold their feet to the conservative fire?

The answers are: measurement, discipline and leadership, not necessarily in that order.

379 posted on 07/25/2012 3:34:00 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Good luck with that. Usually Judges can control their court rooms. If you find one that disagrees, you truly have “Kokura luck”.

Control to the point of illegal and illegitimate pronouncements?

I showed you where the NM Constitution forbids any law from abridging the right of the Citizen to bear arms; how then could they legitimately prosecute under the law?

But, consider the case of Stephanie Miller, where the judge threatened to hold her in contempt for supporting/assisting-with her 12 year-old son's decision to be baptized. In this thread, I lay out why, despite there being language about religious-upbringing in the divorce settlement it is null and void according to the State's own constitution:

Art 1, Section 3.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

To assert that this agreement [from the divorce] has any binding force is to reject the above portion of the State's Constitution.
It violates the underlined portion in that it prevents the boy from worshiping according to his own conscience; i.e. that he is prevented from, say, being a Catholic [or trained thereby] if the parents are against it.
It violates the italicized portion in that he is being compelled to support [by his presence] the religious institutions in the agreement.
It violates the bolded part in that the enforcement thereof is reliant upon human authority to control and interfere with those rights of conscience.

She reaped what she sowed.

Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court's readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.

Such behaviors by judges are intolerable in that they make the supreme laws (constitutions), literally, of no effect.

I find the excusing and/or expectation of such behavior to be both repugnant and indicating that we are in fact under a soft tyranny -- ruled by men, not laws.

380 posted on 07/25/2012 5:18:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence, with a long tradition of common law behind it. Like other judicial authority, it is subject to appeal to other judges. Normally you get one appeal always, but you can ask for more, but the higher courts get to choose their cases, another long tradition of common law.


381 posted on 07/25/2012 8:00:07 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence

A judge independent of the law!? And you were disparaging me of my comments... you, my friend, have chutzpa.

382 posted on 07/26/2012 9:01:40 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

A judge is not independent of the law. That is your strawman.

He is independent, not controlled by either party in any proceeding that may occur in his court room. His rulings do not depend on either the prosecutor, or defense, or on either party in a civil suit. He may uphold arguments advanced by either party, or may write or hold an opinion that is different from either.


383 posted on 07/26/2012 7:07:39 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
A judge is not independent of the law. That is your strawman.

And yet in post 381 you say:

A judges control over his court is not by law, but rather by judicial authority to maintain his judicial independence, with a long tradition of common law behind it.
{And as a self-contradiction, you say that the control stems from a tradition of common law. But either the term 'law' covers "common law" or the term "common law" is a misnomer and not really law at all; if the latter then the judge's power is actually less legitimate than a priest who depends wholly upon 'tradition'.}

He is independent, not controlled by either party in any proceeding that may occur in his court room.

Ah, but does that mean that he is free to violate the Law that is th Constitution that establishes his position? (I already gave examples.)

His rulings do not depend on either the prosecutor, or defense, or on either party in a civil suit. He may uphold arguments advanced by either party, or may write or hold an opinion that is different from either.

That is not the matter at hand; the matter at hand is the liberty to declare things contrary to the authority that establishes their own position. Logically this is impossible; so either they must fall under the strictures of the Constitutions OR their authority is derived from a place other than what has been presented (that is the constitution).

To assert that a judge's ruling, that his authority, can legitimately countermand the Constitution is to render him independent of the Constitution, yes or no?

384 posted on 07/26/2012 9:49:33 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Moonshot925=NS


385 posted on 07/29/2012 6:27:57 PM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Concur


386 posted on 07/29/2012 6:35:05 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
When Obama’s supreme court bans firearms Texans won't be asking any ones permission to leave the union. Will Obama send in troops to stop the rebellion? More likely he will ask the UN to send a sternly written document and impose sanctions.
387 posted on 11/07/2012 8:51:59 AM PST by aveeguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aveeguy

I suggest that if Texas wants to leave, they better at least file suit, and say pretty please.

Of course reality isn’t most secessionists’ strong suit.

If you want to get all influential, why not exercise the Texas annexation option to cut Texas up into 5 states. That would give you at least 8 more senators, and perhaps a few more representatives in change. North Texas, West Texas, South Texas, East Texas, and Austin. Ok, that last one would go for the Dems, but still a net gain, right?


388 posted on 11/07/2012 5:34:43 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You can pretend that the 14th Amendment is not valid, I don’t have to go along with your delusion.


389 posted on 11/07/2012 5:37:53 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
To assert that a judge's ruling, that his authority, can legitimately countermand the Constitution is to render him independent of the Constitution, yes or no? Of course the judges' ruling does not countermand the constitution, rather, it interprets it. It only countermands your incorrect interpretation. If you disagree, with the courts' interpretation you get to appeal to a higher authority: Appellate courts, or in the case of SCOTUS cases, to the Constitutional amendment process.
390 posted on 11/07/2012 5:41:41 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You showed me that you think that no law can abridge a right you think you have.

You didn’t show me that a law abridges a right that you actually do have.

Note the subtle difference. Your delusions are not law. See how that works?


391 posted on 11/07/2012 5:44:15 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
You showed me that you think that no law can abridge a right you think you have.

No, I showed you a constitution that mandates no law shall abridge that right [the NM]; and I showed a Constitution affirming rights and specifically prohibiting a judge's ruling ["that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience" (WRT religious freedom)].

You didn’t show me that a law abridges a right that you actually do have.
Note the subtle difference. Your delusions are not law. See how that works?

So then, you are asserting that (a) the State's Constitution is not law; (b) a right recognized by said Constitution is not a right; and (c) that pointing out these conflicting with law is actually delusion. (Oh, and I did give example of violating law here.)

But please continue.

392 posted on 11/07/2012 6:34:03 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No. You showed me your assertion of what the law was, and provided a copy/paste of the text of the law. That is different than what the law actually is.

The law is not the words with which it is written. It includes that too, but it is more.

It includes the common law, the record of past cases which help you to understand the words. It includes the legislative record to help understand the ideas behind the words. It includes the context of current events when the law was written, and the context of the events when an act in violation of the law took place.

Example:

Violation of Law? He was exceeding the speed limit.

Context: He was a police officer in pursuit of a dangerous felon.

Moral: The map is not the terrain.

Or, if you like the Pirates of the Carribean franchise:
“We thought of them as more like guidelines.”


393 posted on 11/07/2012 6:53:31 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Random_User_250
I thought the Civil War effectively ended the right of states to secede.

Legally, sure, effectively being a function of force of arms, or will. Lacking that, and it's lacking, a rather silly concept.

394 posted on 11/07/2012 6:58:04 PM PST by SJackson (none of this suggests there are hostile feelings for the US in Egypt, Victoria Nuland, State Dept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

I would remind YOU that Nuclear Weapons are on Texas soil.
Ft. Hood & Ft. Bliss.


395 posted on 11/10/2012 1:21:54 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

I would remind YOU that Nuclear Weapons are on Texas soil.
Ft. Hood & Ft. Bliss.


396 posted on 11/10/2012 1:24:55 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

No. The bottom line is that you need to zip your pie hole and worry about that leftist toilet of California where you live!

Texans will do exactly what they want. To hell with Obama and his communist congress.


397 posted on 11/10/2012 1:28:07 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Deo Vindice (God will vindicate) February 22, 1861)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

The nuclear weapons are on federal bases. Texas doesn’t control that.

Rather like Ft. Sumter was a federal installation, built on a shoal, not S.Carolina soil.


398 posted on 11/11/2012 12:54:30 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

And Texas v. White resolved the matter legally, if there was any doubt.

Article 3 of the Constitution requires controversies be resolved at the Supreme Court. Of course federal legislation or amendment would be other ways that could resolve some issues. You don’t get to avoid the requirement to resolve controversies in court by declaring that you don’t want to.


399 posted on 11/11/2012 12:57:45 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

Ah, another reasoned and intellectual post by the Ron Paul faction. I got to know quite a few of them when I lived in Sealy.


400 posted on 11/11/2012 12:59:50 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-407 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson