Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dear Arizona; Has SCOTUS made secession your only option
Monday, June 25, 2012 | Bob Ireland

Posted on 06/25/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by Bob Ireland

Dear Arizona;

As Justice Antonin Scalia has just written, the SCOTUS opinion against the state of Arizona concerning immigration problems has made the phrase 'sovereign state' of no further effect.

The primary function of government is to serve the people it represents. One primary function under that obligation is to protect the population it serves. The SCOTUS opinion states that - if the United States Federal Government has statutory mandate to fulfill that obligation - then the state has no right to supersede the Federal Government when the Federal Government refuses to extend that protection.

The effect of the SCOTUS opinion today is to eliminate states' rights' in a major area of the states' statutory mandate. Put another way, the Federal Government can establish rules that eliminate states' rights under historical common law.

This author therefore suggests that the state of Arizona call a Constitutional Convention of interested states - to potentially include Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Alaska and perhaps the Carolinas [and any other state wishing to bind itself under such restrictions as herein mentioned] - pursuant to forming a new sovereign nation established under the auspices of the original Constitution of the United States.

Such Declaration of Independence should include a rejection of an imperial presidency which reserves unto itself the right to establish and enforce laws as it best sees fit without legislative oversight. The Declaration should reject all laws and regulations that establish a socialist, communist or dictatorial interpretation of states' rights or citizen's rights.

Such a federation or commonwealth should recognize in perpetuity the right of any member state to withdraw from the union when the said union jeopardizes the rights, liberties or the pursuit of happiness of said member state and its citizens. It should recognize the responsibility of the Executive Office as lawfully established to enforce laws properly passed by the legislature of representatives of the people, and to be interdicted against reinterpreting the meaning of such legally passed laws or refusing to enforce said laws.

The convention of agreeable states should establish such legal standards as were envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, and should carefully protect states' rights and individual citizen's rights.

It is impossible to see any other alternative for states and citizens wishing to protect their Constitutional rights in the face of a runaway Federal Government of the United States, and its various organs, that has all but suspended the founding intent of the original Constitutional Convention.

LET FREEDOM RING!!!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; secession; statesrights; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last
To: Bob Ireland

Message to Arizona- Start forming Infantry Regiments wholly under the control of the Arizona Governor and state legislature. Patrol your borders. IT IS THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO THAT WILL GET THE ATTENTION OF FEDZILLA.


51 posted on 06/25/2012 1:29:53 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; bill1952

I don’t think that those who advocate secession are either patriots or take their oaths under the Pledge of Allegiance seriously.


52 posted on 06/25/2012 1:30:59 PM PDT by berserker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

We need to stop voting for anyone who is not willing to deport 100% of all Illegal Aliens....anything other is Amnesty

Unfortunately, the current GOP President appointed SCOTUS were chosen by pro-Illegal Alien presidents.

If we continue to vote for pro-Amnesty Presidents...we continue to get Pro-Amnesty, Pro-Illegal Alien rulings.

Anyone not committed to secure borders and 100% of all Illegals deported...supports Illegal Alien Amnesty


53 posted on 06/25/2012 1:34:28 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (When I said "close the borders", I did not mean the bookstore chain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

“My point is simply that it is power, not reason, that ultimately decides such questions.

Secession is legal only to the extent that force allows it to succeed. Had the South won, it would have been ‘legal.’ Because it lost, it was ‘illegal.’”

It’s okay to say what matters is what powers says matters. That’s historically accurate. But it’s not okay to say Might Makes Law, anymore than Might Makes Right. That’s a contradiction. Just as when you say Might Makes Right you’re actually saying there is no such thing as right or wrong, when you say Might Makes Law you’re saying there is no such thing as law. Which I guess is what you mean by putting quotation marks around legal and illegal.

Well, just to be clear, they can say this or that is legal or illegal, but that’s not how it works. New laws may be whatever the side that wins says they are, since they get the power to pass laws once they’ve won. But they do not get to change what the laws were or continue to be if they don’t replace them.


54 posted on 06/25/2012 1:35:38 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I am jealous of Greece in one way. They can default and become independent of the EU. An nobody is going to invade them, There will be no siege of Athens and a march to the Mediteranean.

But over here if you even talk about it you are threatened with Civil War.

55 posted on 06/25/2012 1:36:32 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland
Good afternoon Guy. I trust you are doing well.

Methinks you have opened a can of worms with this thread.

I believe the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and Article IV section 4 of the Constitution (e.g. Republican form of government), gives the states a right to seceded from the Union. Unfortunately, it didn't go well the first time.

Article V (convention) would open a big can of worms, although in my opinion would probably fail, and begin a process which would lead to CWII.

Methinks the ballot box is much more preferable to the cartridge box. I'm getting to old to hump ammo.

5.56mm

56 posted on 06/25/2012 1:38:34 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.

Oh, well that's it then! Whatever Madison said is law.

No, seriously I've read some books on this and secession was viewed as always on the table in America until the Civil War put an end to it. There were debates about secession in New England, as well as in the South, for generations. So, a lot of people got it wrong, I guess.

Doesn't the 10th Ammendment guarantee secession, as a right reserved because it is not mentioned in the Constitution itself?

I think Thomas Woods Jr. has written on this.

57 posted on 06/25/2012 1:40:00 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
I'm getting to old to hump ammo

We will find you a desk job.

58 posted on 06/25/2012 1:40:11 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

“LOL - Of course it is not!
Rebellions, revolutions, and successions never are legal.”

Wrong. Secessions are legal so long as they are carried out by the proper authority. For instance counties cannot legally secede from states because counties weren’t ever sovereign. States are, or are through the people. That’s according to the theory, of course. There isn’t really any such thing as sovereignty, but we pretend there is. And so long as we pretend, it is what it is.

The states did not give up the right to leave the U.S. because the power to do so was not explicitly denied to them by the Constitution. According to common sense as laid out in the 10th amendment, whatever is not granted to the feds or denied to the states is reserved by the states or the people. Secession is one such reserved power, and it derives from the sovereignty of the states. Therefore, secession is legal.

Lincoln or anyone can call it rebellion or revolution, but they’re plain wrong.


59 posted on 06/25/2012 1:40:57 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

Open rebellion might not solve all our problems, but an uprising sure does make people think and look critically at the sour situation.

The Gaspee burning, the Boston Tea Party, Lexington and Concord, Shay’s Rebellion ... our history is sprinkled with angry revolts. I think we need another.

Sadly, a few people would get killed. But a few shots fired might wake people up to the usurping of our liberties and the destruction of our Constitution.

Personally, I think a few thousand angry militia volunteers along the Arizona border might open a few eyes, but that’s just me.


60 posted on 06/25/2012 1:43:44 PM PDT by DNME (A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright. — Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Here is the article on the legal basis of secession.
61 posted on 06/25/2012 1:44:45 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: central_va
***wholly under the control of the Arizona Governor and state legislature. Patrol your borders.***

I have advocated a cheap and effective way to secure the [southern] border for some time now: MINE IT! With proper notification and protections there is no reason that anyone should ever get hurt... and invasion of illegal migrants of all nations would be severely curtailed.

Of course, as this thread indicates all too clearly, I am a radical! :-)

62 posted on 06/25/2012 1:51:11 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
***When I said "close the borders", I did not mean the bookstore chain***

:-D

I wonder if we are passing beyond elections...

63 posted on 06/25/2012 1:53:02 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Ya know....he tees off enough Red states..and they leave..he gets to remain “president” of a handful of blue!!!


64 posted on 06/25/2012 1:55:35 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“So, you have a contract with someone, and they refuse to live up to that contract, but you are still obligated to remain in that contract and fulfill your part?”

To make the metaphor apt you have to stipulate that the contract had an opt out clause, because implicitly the Constitution did according to the principle of state sovereignty and by not denying the states the right to leave. Also, not all the states agreed to the contract. I don’t see how Tom, Dick, and Harry, if they don’t have power of attourney, can bind me to anything. The ratification process stipulated 9 states necessary to make the Constitution law, but since there were more than 9 states I don’t see how the others would be considered bound by it. Nevermind.

Also again, not all contracts are legal. You can’t, for instance, contract to be someone’s salve. This is so because slavery is illegal, but also because of the principle that certain rights are inalienable. That is, you cannot transfer them to anyone else. They are yours and can never be sacrificed.

So even if the Constitution explicitly said the states were abandoning their sovereignty—which it didn’t—that would be improper, because even if certain powers are delegatable ultimate sovereignty is non-transferable. Anway, they didn’t. They and the people retained sovereignty. The contract was to be united under the Constitution for as long as it suited the parties.


65 posted on 06/25/2012 1:55:35 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
***(convention) would open a big can of worms, although in my opinion would probably fail***

HOWDY! :-)

Perilous times...

66 posted on 06/25/2012 1:55:36 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
The north was prepared to allow the south to secede. Lincoln was even negotiating for transfer of federal property. That fell apart when South Carolina lowered it's tariff to 10% and Massachusetts screamed bloody murder. It had assumed the south would remain a captive market for it's manufactured goods and a supplier of raw materials.

The south was conquered and treated as a conquered nation. Reconstruction installed puppet governments and probably caused more racial animus than anything else.

The way I see it, the war simply established that might makes right and nothing else.

67 posted on 06/25/2012 1:56:36 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“Caesar eliminated the Republic by refusing to lay down the control over his ARMY which he brought back into Italy from Gaul. He and his successors ruled THROUGH the Senate no by executive fiat in any case. They never eliminated the Senate just its power.”

There’s a reason the previous poster emboldened the word “republic.” It was the republican form of government that Caesar killed, even if the senate persisted in name. Or maybe he only put it in coma, and Augustus killed it. Whatever, Rome ceased to be a republic. I wonder, according to what you post, whether you know what a republic is.


68 posted on 06/25/2012 2:00:21 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“It has grown into what it is because that is what the majority wanted.”

That would be all well and good if we were a democracy. We aren’t. how sickening and just plain sad that I have to read this sort of thing of FR, as well as every other damn place.


69 posted on 06/25/2012 2:02:36 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DNME
***our history is sprinkled with angry revolts. I think we need another***

I would hope my proposal could be done peacefully... but I am prone to fantasies... perilous times. Whenever one advocates a major change to society's structure, one can never predict the outcome... opportunists abound.

By the same token, I wonder if we are evolving past elections under the present circumstances.

70 posted on 06/25/2012 2:03:56 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; arrogantsob

>>It replaced the Articles wholly, and illegally at that.<<

Not illegal at all.

Congress called the Annapolis and Constitutional Conventions.

The delegates to Philadelphia determined the Articles of Confederation could not be improved (they were right) and drafted a form of government that met the needs of the Union.

Said delegates submitted the Constitution to Congress. The Confederation Congress of the United States did not have to pass the Constitution to the States. It did.

The legislatures of the States did not have to arrange for popular elections of delegates to State ratifying conventions. They did.

The States held special conventions of the people’s delegates. They did not have to ratify, but they did.

Our beloved Constitution is perfectly legal.


71 posted on 06/25/2012 2:04:18 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy
I think we should just stop paying federal taxes. We can bring this regime to its knees by starving it. But I don’t see a coordinated effort happening. Too many people don’t have the spine to break the law even though this administration has done so repeatedly and Congress won’t stop it.

Indeed. Most people talk tough at the keyboard but would never have the guts to refuse to pay taxes.

They wouldn't even have to break the law, necessarily. Just don't make money or own anything significant, and you don't have to pay income tax. (Or is that too much to ask?)

72 posted on 06/25/2012 2:04:23 PM PDT by Lady Lucky (God-issued, not govt-issued.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland
Maybe you didn't hear? There was an entire war fought over the unilateral secession of American states from the Union. The seceding states got their b-yuttockes cleaned at Gettysburg, and they all eventually surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia. The political and literal descedents of those rebels like to brag about how righteous their cause was and how they long to rise again. They haven't, and they aren't going to--all they've got is big mouths.
So don't go trying to tell us in Arizona how we';re going to handle the matter. We'll figure it our for ourselves.

The only model that exists in the United States now is a model of a bunch of losers. And by the way, the eternal rebel, Billy The Kid, is not a great role model. He's dead, you know.
73 posted on 06/25/2012 2:05:05 PM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berserker

“I don’t think that those who advocate secession are either patriots or take their oaths under the Pledge of Allegiance seriously.”

They are patriots, since our forefathers are known if for nothing else for seceding from the British empire and establishing through the states a new form of government.

No, I don’t take the pledge seriously. It is an unwelcome burden and serves no good purpose. Since when can kids make binding oaths, anyway?


74 posted on 06/25/2012 2:06:06 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: berserker

“I don’t think that those who advocate secession are either patriots or take their oaths under the Pledge of Allegiance seriously.”

They are patriots, since our forefathers are known if for nothing else for seceding from the British empire and establishing through the states a new form of government.

No, I don’t take the pledge seriously. It is an unwelcome burden and serves no good purpose. Since when can kids make binding oaths, anyway? And what does an oath made under duress signify?


75 posted on 06/25/2012 2:06:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Interesting read. Unfortunately his premise betrays his conclusions and his objectivity:

If secession was illegal, then the actions of the those eleven Southern states led to the destruction of the republic as created by our Founding Fathers, and the South bears ultimate responsibility for the deaths of the 620,000 Americans who died in the ensuing war. However, if secession was a legal action, then blame for the aforementioned tragedies can be placed squarely upon the shoulders of President Abraham Lincoln; the deification of the putative “Great Emancipator” can cease, and he can be forever known as the President who plunged the nation into the bloodiest conflict in its history.

The legal theory of secession was largely untested (every previous attempt was summarily put down) and provocative. The southern fire-eaters knew this but instead of exhausting legal remedies they instead sought to enforce secession by force. It didn't work out so well for them, either legally or on the field of battle.

76 posted on 06/25/2012 2:06:57 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; Tublecane
***They never eliminated the Senate just its power***

You have an ironic sense of humor...

77 posted on 06/25/2012 2:08:59 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.

Madison said [my bold]:

The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

Madison was one of the coauthors of Virginia's ratification of the Constitution which said:

... the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.

Virginia cited that in their secession document of 1861.

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, in his 1866 book, "Is Davis a Traitor or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?" notes the following regarding the Virginia ratification:

In the first place, the Constitution was not to be established by the people of America as one nation, or by “the people of the United States as one great society;” and this fact was perfectly well known to the Virginia Convention of 1788. It has already been sufficiently demonstrated, that the Constitution was ordained, not by the people of America as one great society, but by each People acting for itself alone, and to be bound exclusively by its own voluntary act. It would be a great solicism in language, as well as logic, to say that the people of the United States as one great society, might resume powers which were not delegated by them. The sovereignty which delegates, is the sovereignty which resumes; and it is absurd to speak of a resumption of powers by any other authority, whether real or imaginary.

Then again, New York's ratification of the Constitution was voted for by the two other authors of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay [my bold again]:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.

WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...

... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.

The New York ratification was accepted by the other original states.

78 posted on 06/25/2012 2:12:46 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

“Doesn’t the 10th Ammendment guarantee secession, as a right reserved because it is not mentioned in the Constitution itself?”

At least someone understands how the Constitution works. The Constitution gives certain powers to the feds and denies certain others to the states. It does not take powers away from the states without saying so.

The only way there’s actually an argument is over states that didn’t precede the Constitution. But that’s specious. You can say they were created by the federal government, though that’s reductive and arguably inaccurate. Actually, the people—that is, sovereign people—have to apply to be a state before the feds take notice.

Anyway, once they’re made states their statehood is equal to the other states, yes? Nothing anywhere says Arizona is a state in every way New York is a state except they’re not sovereign. They are sovereign because they are a state. That’s what it means to be a state. If they’re something else, then we should stop calling them “states.”


79 posted on 06/25/2012 2:13:28 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
It has grown into what it is because that is what the majority wanted.

Have we had an election where a majority of eligible Americans actually voted?

If has grown into what it is because the majority quit paying attention and/or have been misinformed and/or quit playing and stay home.

I doubt the SC's decisions here fully reflect a majority opinion, but it's what we have in our more or less one party system, complete with its false choices every election.

The election game is rigged. You won't get serious Constitutional changes until you first change the game, but there's no way the PTBs will let that happen, as votes, legislation and rulings continue to show.

80 posted on 06/25/2012 2:13:41 PM PDT by GBA (To understand what is happening to America and why, read The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

You are forgetting TEXAS. We were a sovereign Republic from 1836 to 1846. We did it once before; we can do it again.


81 posted on 06/25/2012 2:15:23 PM PDT by nanetteclaret (Unreconstructed Catholic Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

“They wouldn’t even have to break the law, necessarily. Just don’t make money or own anything significant, and you don’t have to pay income tax. (Or is that too much to ask?)”

***

Given the sorry state of the economy, that should be easy.


82 posted on 06/25/2012 2:15:45 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44
***don't go trying to tell us in Arizona how we';re going to handle the matter***

This author therefore suggests that the state of Arizona call a Constitutional Convention...

Turn your bed 90 degrees before rising.

83 posted on 06/25/2012 2:16:13 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Almost every presidential election year has a turnout of (sometimes barely) over half of the voting age population.

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

“You can’t cheat an honest electorate.”


84 posted on 06/25/2012 2:24:44 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret
***TEXAS . . . We did it once before; we can do it again***

You may soon see a large legal immigration! ;-)

85 posted on 06/25/2012 2:25:19 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: nanetteclaret

And you’re forgetting Texas v. White.


86 posted on 06/25/2012 2:26:23 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

>>Why go through the process of ratification if the states had sacrificed their sovereignty to the Articles and it was perpetual?<<

The States sacrificed no sovereignty under the Confederation. That was the problem.

There was a sea change regarding sovereignty between 1776 and 1787. Whereas the original State constitutions had largely been ratified by State legislatures, by 1787 most had been revised and ratified by conventions of the people.

The Articles of Confederation were not dumped solely because the states lost interest in it after the war. In short order we came to regard real sovereignty as actually residing in the people and not state legislatures. A less Federal and more democratic real government under the Constitution better reflected American concepts of sovereignty.


87 posted on 06/25/2012 2:27:14 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
***. . . Madison said . . . ***

You are definitely a delegate! ;-D

88 posted on 06/25/2012 2:30:45 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

Unfortunately Brewer doesn’t have the chops to do the right thing for the country and the US Constitution.

For starters they should just remove Obama from the ballot.


89 posted on 06/25/2012 2:42:46 PM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

Unfortunately Brewer doesn’t have the chops to do the right thing for the country and the US Constitution.

For starters they should just remove Obama from the ballot.


90 posted on 06/25/2012 2:43:07 PM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

Secession would be so sweet. Can you see all the losers in washington befuddled as they begin to lose their god, money.It would be awesome to see.


91 posted on 06/25/2012 2:49:22 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland
This author therefore suggests that the state of Arizona call a Constitutional Convention of interested states - to potentially include Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Alaska and perhaps the Carolinas [and any other state wishing to bind itself under such restrictions as herein mentioned] - pursuant to forming a new sovereign nation established under the auspices of the original Constitution of the United States.

The court has upheld the most important parts of the Arizona law, so there's no reason for secession.

However, Arizona may follow you up on this and back out at the last minute, in order to "fake out" some of those other states.

92 posted on 06/25/2012 2:50:40 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

Secession would be so sweet. Can you see all the losers in washington befuddled as they began to lose their god, money.It would be awesome to see. What an unholy place with their gay junk and all their other unholy alliances not supported by America.


93 posted on 06/25/2012 2:52:33 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

As I understand the abuse of AZ, the administration uses Article I Section 8 Clause 4, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . “ as the club to demand a State subject itself to hundreds of thousand of invaders. Baloney.

Seriously, the nature of the people coming across the border without permission is far closer to that of invaders than to immigrants.

IMO, the States should petition/demand Congress implement Article IV Section 4, “The United States shall . . . protect each of them (states) against Invasion; . . . “

Better to go down this road first.


94 posted on 06/25/2012 2:55:16 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Arizona should have the support of every other state. They shouldn’t have to go this alone. The states have enough money to deport them by themselves. Start doing it and forget ice.


95 posted on 06/25/2012 2:56:54 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland
Sure, the economies of the world are sinking and the forces of anarchy are marching in the streets everywhere. Armageddon may indeed be nigh ...

However, the real news today is that Bob Ireland is posting on Free Republic! Welcome to the fight! (again) :)

96 posted on 06/25/2012 2:57:32 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry me back

Sheriff Arpaio on Cavuto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SdyQcyVCSs


97 posted on 06/25/2012 3:00:06 PM PDT by halo66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Bob Ireland

All AZ has to do is continue to make arrests as usual and use the detainees as slaves building State projects like roads in the desert. It won’t take Obama long to back the Hell down when his voters are being held as slaves because the federal government refuses to deport them as required by law. So, AZ should just keep them until the feds pick them up for deportation.


98 posted on 06/25/2012 3:06:36 PM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

It is common sense that states had and have the right to secede. But really does it matter ? If the states want to go, the US government doesn’t have the reslove or power to stop them this time. The blacks or hispanics couldn’t care less and I don’t see guys from Vermont trying to invade another state this time. I’m not calling for it, but I think the states would win this time easily.


99 posted on 06/25/2012 3:07:07 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Agree with this. A game of chicken is being played right now.


100 posted on 06/25/2012 3:08:54 PM PDT by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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