Posted on 04/29/2008 11:20:59 AM PDT by mek1959
Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
I fully support your right to do whatever you want with your vote.
LOL!
McCain has a more attractive spouse...
The one thing in that list which is unquestionably true.
LOL! Thanks for the reply!
A pretty face keeps your mind off that shiv aimed at your back, right? :)
(Personally, I don’t think there will ever again be as gorgeous a First Lady as Mrs. Bush is, not in my lifetime).
Hang in there....
I agree somewhat with your views here on what a break up would look like, but I also think this is sort of mechanism was designed into our national government.
What I’m talking about here is the “What If” scenarios that are truly massive.
“What if” the eastern seaboard gets taken out.
“What if” you have a massive economic collapse.
Etc.
The US is made up of 50 independent states that agreed to form a national government. They have elected Chiefs, militias, etc.
If it falls apart, truly, at a national level, then the states will likely form regional sovereign states I would imagine. May even form along the lines of College Football Conferences (Big 10, Pac 10, SEC), who knows?
The interesting part is all the national military infrastructure that lands in the various newly autonomous nations.
There’s a book out about how this all played out in the USSR, when one day, suddenly, there was no USSR. Out there, EVERYTHING came from Moscow. Once those individual states got turned loose, they weren’t coming back.
Okay Bowden, I’ll just put you down as a “lying POS troll,” since you just pull toro mierda out of your culo.
Thanks for making that clear on this website, for future reference.
The last I noticed, Montana wasn't one of the Confederate states, and neither the Montana Secretary of State nor that state's other elected officials was wearing the butternut grey uniform of the former southern states alliance.
*Confederation* implies a contract between states, and they'd first have to be independent, whether de jure or de facto, for that to happen.
So how long a hitch did you serve in the military, and how many jobs have you created?
Not at all. I saw nothing in Mr Williams' essay that advocated conducting war against the United States or its people- who are, per the constittion that created the United States, the government itself.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
This is lunacy; I will not partake in it.
That is your prerogative and you're welcome to it. Kindly note though, that others of us here do not have that option, and are sworn otherwise:
I, (NAME)(SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of MAJOR do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) You will note that we are not sworn to defend the flag, nor federal buildings or territory, not the public, nor any other public officials or employees or anything else. But those who would mess with the American constitution are asking for real trouble.Taking up arms when you don’t get your way on economic policy is self-destructive.
As, for instance, when the tea was dumped in Boston harbour as a tax protest, followed shortly thereafter when General Thomas Gage and his troops had more difficulty confiscating property from Americans in Concord and Lexington than he had imagined. Or when those pesky Sioux and Cheyanne had to be eliminated after it was found that the lands ceded to them by treaty weren't quite as worthless as it originally appeared?
Thanks,
Eaker
Tom, you might find the following report on the late Kemper Marley, the Arizona Democratic Party stringpuller who first introduced John McCain to Arizona politics and who was McCain's political mentor and handler, to be additionally instructive.
This linked Wikipedia entry is of similar and related interest.
Interesting thread. Thanks to every contributor.
Do you know this for a fact?
Can you raise your right hand and swear before Almighty God these things will happen?
Or do you only have Mc Cain’s word fp it?
I hate to burst your bubble but John Mc Cain is also a DSemocrat. He only masquerades as a Republican. So come november whatever the outcome, the Democrats will control the White House.
Whatever. Enjoy your Obama bumper sticker.
I wouldn’t KNOW FOR A FACT and SWEAR BEFORE ALMIGHTY GOD that a cannon ball will fall if dropped from a building top. Nobody can be sure ANYTHING will happen in the future?
Sometimes things happen different than we expect. However the differences between the Republican Candidate, John McCain, and the Democrat candidates, Clinton/Obama are stark and clear.
If you can’t see them then you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I agree with you, but you are comparing apples and oranges. The Founing Fathers were opposed to taxation without representation in Parliament.
Today, we are represented in government, but we have lost our power. The federal government has grown into an uncontrollable behemoth that has accrued power far beyond what is permissible by the Constitution.
In truth, the states share some of the blame in that they have allowed this assumption of power to go unchecked and, in fact, have helped it along - particularly in adopting the 16th amendment, which allowed the federal government to tax income from whatever source derived.
“If your rulers are stealing your land or enslaving you or are trying to uproot your language and culture, you’d do well to organize against them.
But if your complaint is high taxes, you rarely get what you want through independence.”
Our rulers are stealing our land. Look at the Kelo decision, which completely subverts legititmate uses of eminent domain.
As far as enslavement goes, be aware that tax freedom day falls about 4 months after the start of the year. We are deprived of 1/3 of our work time because it is confiscated by the govenment without due process.
Our language and culture is actively being destroyed. First off, there is little political will to defend our borders. As a consequence, our nation is flooded by as many as 30 million illegal aliens and all that entails.
In addition, look at the damage that has been done to our culture by organizations like the ACLU-founded by a socialist. Be aware that we also pay for the successes of such organizations under Section 1988 claims for “proceedings in vindiation of civil rights”.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut court in the Kelo case, which means that they ruled that the question of what constitutes the legitimate use of eminent domain is a state issue and not a federal one. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
“Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be?”
That depends on whether or not you believe in the 14th Amendment’s incorporation of the Bill of Rigths as applying against the States.
If, via the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights does apply against the States then the Supremes subverted the 5th Amendment of the Constitution and sanctioned governmental theft of private property.
If the Bill of Rights - 5th Amendment - does not apply against the States then the Supremes reached the correct decision regardless of the correctness of their rationale.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is to look at Article VI. If state and local laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and the laws and treaties made under it, then the U.S. Constitution is supreme. If they do not then the state and local laws should apply. When it comes to eminent domain the wording in the state constitution is identical with the wording in the 5th Amendment. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define what constitutes public use then it should be a question for the state legislature to decide. I may not agree with the Connecticut legislature's definition of public use but I agree with the court that that question is best left to the states and not the federal government.
“I may not agree with the Connecticut legislature’s definition of public use but I agree with the court that that question is best left to the states and not the federal government.”
The Supremes did not decide that the question of what constitutes public use is best left to the States. They decided that the redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull area satisfied a “public purpose”. Thereby continuing the precedential fallacy that a “public use” equates to a “public purpose”.
From the opinion: The question presented is whether the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Supremes did not decide that the state or municipality can arbitrarily define what constitutes a public use.
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.
