If Obama wins: Will Texas secede from the union?

BizPac Review ^ | Michael Dorstewitz

[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.

[BroJoeK]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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?

[donmeaker]

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

[donmeaker]

Lets try that again.

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

[rockrr]

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

[OneWingedShark]

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?

[BroJoeK]

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.

[LaserJock]

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.

[donmeaker]

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

[OneWingedShark]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

[donmeaker]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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;

[BroJoeK]

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?

• That Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia & South Carolina all rejected the Amendment in 1866 before ratifying it in 1868?
  
• Or that Ohio and New Jersey after ratifying in 1866 later in 1868 attempted to withdraw their ratifications?
  
• Or that Virginia, Mississippi and Texas all ratified around 1870, two years after the 14th Amendment was declared passed?
  
• Or that Delaware, Maryland, California & Oregon did not ratify it until the 1900s?
  
• Or that New Jersey and Ohio did not finally rescind their 1868 rescissions until 2003?

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...

[af_vet_rr]

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.

[BroJoeK]

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.

[af_vet_rr]

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.

[donmeaker]

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

[BroJoeK]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

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.