Posted on 07/30/2013 7:15:08 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Yes,that's *exactly* what I believe.And,unlike you,I see the spectacle of the 1st Infantry Division and the 8th Air Force attacking,say,Nebraska after their secession vote to be a huge part of the reason why the Royal Canadian Air Force wouldn't have attacked Quebec if they had declared independence or why the Royal Navy won't attack Scotland if they do so next year.
Remember...8th Air Force + sorties over Nebraska = worldwide financial collapse.For starters.
Not surprising at all.
And,unlike you,I see the spectacle of the 1st Infantry Division and the 8th Air Force attacking,say,Nebraska after their secession vote to be a huge part of the reason why the Royal Canadian Air Force wouldn't have attacked Quebec if they had declared independence or why the Royal Navy won't attack Scotland if they do so next year.
There you go again, mixing different forms of government and different countries. It might help if you stayed in one.
And really, if Nebraska decided to secede and we bombarded Offut into surrender on our way out the door thus starting a war then we shouldn't be surprised if the 1st Infantry or a B-2 appear. Now should we?
Since I've realized that the "United States of America" has passed the point of no return that's been my most fervent dream.I hope to someday soon reside peacefully in the "Respectable States of America" while you,OTOH,are willing to kill me and those like me in the name of the now failed state called,by many,the "Debauched States of America".As we face off against each other in the battle to create the "RSA" I'll be beside many fine people and you'll be fighting alongside Bill Ayers,the descendants of Saul Alinsky and Jerimiah Wright (among other "luminaries").
Of course one could leave the US. The borders are not closed, and you can buy a ticket to anywhere.
A state and all the people in it could legally leave the US by amendment to the federal constitution, perhaps by federal law, and practically by a suit against the US brought by that state, with the supreme court as original jurisdiction.
They can’t leave by local state action, per Texas v. White.
If Nebraska was to pretend secession, the President would be under obligation to assure that the laws were enforced. That means that if people didn’t pay their taxes, they would be given notice, and eventually prosecuted.
If they interfered with the mails, that is also a crime. If they illegally occupied US property, such as post offices, or federal government buildings, such force would be met with force.
Absent legal, federal action to separate Nebraska from the US, failure to pay taxes and obey federal laws would be a crime, and subject to punishment. Resistance of law enforcement is itself a crime.
Of all the things I could thing of to call Massachusetts, "Respectable States of America" was nowhere on the list. I'd like to establish the "Conservative States of America" but I'd rather not go to war to do it.
“[T]he current union” referred to is the ‘more perfect union’ that initially supplemented and later completely comprised and took the place of the ‘perpetual union’.
North Carolina had not left the perpetual union, and was merely in the position of not yet joining the more perfect union.
IOW at the Battles of Lexington and Concord you would have been wearing red and crying "God save the King!"
Revealing.
I'd be fighting with the colonials. But I would not be pretending my actions were something that they were not.
No. At Lexington and Concord there was resistance by the local people to illegal and unjust actions of the British government. The regulars of the British army had no authority to steal private firearms nor to kidnap private citizens. Their occupation and blockade of Boston, to include their seizure of ships there was illegal and unconstitutional.
Independence had not been declared, and the rights of the citizens were being attacked. The local militia had been called to defend the citizens from that illegal and unjust military action.
Only after a year of England making war on the various colonies, was independence declared. I recommend you read the Declaration of Independence to read why. It is all laid out there for you, to make up for your lack of schooling.
I defy you to find one instance in which I've referred to *Massachusetts* as "respectable".I've referred to more than a few states in that way but never,never,*ever* Massachusetts.
Coming to a theater near you.
Soon.
Very soon.
I have stood next to that monument.
You have much of which to be proud.
[You]: "The People" doesn't mean the people of one state, but rather the people of the entire nation. Just as "the People" in the preamble, and the first, second, fourth and various amendments refers to the people of the entire US.
So you say. Consider the consequences of your interpretation in the case of the people of one state or a small group of states being oppressed or taken advantage of by other states that made up the majority of the people of the whole United States. This is precisely what some in the ratification conventions were worried about. Your interpretation would basically give power to the people of the oppressing states to continue oppressing or taking advantage of smaller states.
New York delegates were worried about being stuck in a union whose states would not ratify Bill of Rights type amendments that would basically protect the people of New York (and also the people of other states) from a possible future oppressive federal government like the one they had just fought a war to leave. Earlier in their deliberations the NY ratifiers wanted to make their ratification conditional on such amendments being passed within a certain time period. They later removed the conditional requirement but gave themselves an out in the statement above, a statement that they held could not "be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution." As far as I know, no other state refused to accept New York's ratification.
Another thought. The people as a whole cannot very well "reassume" powers that the people as a whole never had and still do not have. As Justice Clarence Thomas has said:
... it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation. [Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]
Fixed it for you.
Why is it that the southern partisans are so enthusiastic about whipping?.
oh, now I remember.They hope to return to a society where the legal regime considered whipping appropriate.
In the event that a people of a state were oppressed, that gives rise to a controversy, to be resolved per Article III.
As is the legislation enacted by your apparent friend and ally,Osama Obama,to blockade my access to health care and the seizure of my money to pay fat a$$ed Rat Party hacks to dole it out to me if and when I'm deemed worthy.King George III never went to *that* extreme.Not even when his brain cells were wracked by the effects of porphyria.
Of course the peole could reassume power by means of an Article V Convention.
I think the US education system would need to be improved before that would be a good idea.
Just think of how few people know that Confederate General Hood burned Atlanta.
Do them mention the men murdered by the pretended Confederacy as ‘deserters’ for the pretended crime of loyalty to the US Government?
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.