TIME FOR SECESSION

Human Events ^ | 1952 | Frank Chodorov

[grumpa]

Texas is rolling toward secession:

http://www.texasnationalist.com/

http://www.thetexasrepublic.com/Home_Page.php

http://www.texassecede.com/

http://freetexasconstitution.wordpress.com/

[Travis McGee]

The con-con route is bowling in the nitro factory. My third novel is all about it, and it ain’t pretty.

[supercat]

I would suggest that more people need to be aware of a few simple truths, which aren't really taught in schools but can be derived by simple logic. Among them:

1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any government act contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate. If an act is unconstitutional, neither the Supreme Court nor any other agency has any authority to declare it otherwise, unless the Constitution is amended via Article V to allow for such action. Any such declaration made without authority is illegitimate and void.
2. Any government action which could not be justified without court precedent is unjustifiable and illegitimate.
3. Juries have a right and duty to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, any judicial declarations notwithstanding. No judge has any legitimate authority to demand they do otherwise.
4. The Supreme Court has no authority over anyone other than the parties to the cases before it. The claim that "precedent" is some sort of uber-law is entirely without legitimate Constitutional basis.
5. The right to a jury trial implies a right of a defendant to demand that a jury make any and all applicable factual determinations. If a judge makes some factual determinations himself, but does so contrary to what a jury would have decided, and if he withholds information from the jury on the basis of such determinations, the verdict attributed to the jury may really be the work of the judge.
6. The reasonableness of searches will often be dependent upon factual issues unique to the cases for which they are used. While it is common for courts to declare that behavior which was "reasonable" in one case is automatically "reasonable" in another, there is no legitimate basis for such declarations. Since unreasonable searches are illegitimate, juries should not construe any evidence from such searches in a manner detrimental to a defendant.
7. The reasonableness of punishments (i.e. fines' being "not excessive", or other punishments' not being "cruel and unusual") is often dependent upon details of of the applicable cases (including, but not limited to, a defendant's state of mind). A punishment which would be if anything too lenient if a particular witness telling the truth, might be grossly excessive if the witness is lying. If a jury's authority to rate the credibility of witnesses is to be upheld, juries must be allowed to limit sentences. Judges routinely block juries from even knowing what sentences would apply to the crimes their judging; I would expect they do that because they know that juries would regard the sentences as excessive and thus illegitimate.
8. A person who performs an action with an objectively reasonable belief the either the action is either de jure or else it is both legal de facto and harmless to others, generally does not have criminal intent; to punish such a person severely would generally be excessive.
9. All free people have a right to keep and bear arms. To disarm someone is to deny that person's liberty. The only people who may be legitimately disarmed are those who may be legitimately regarded as "not free".
10. While there might be some debate regarding the legitimacy of statutes or laws which would, as a side-effect, interfere with people's ability to arm themselves (e.g. requirements that firearms marked for certain calibers be able to withstand certain chamber pressures), any statute whose clear purpose or effect is to make it difficult for some free people to arm themselves effectively is an infringement of such people's right to keep and bear arms, and is thus illegitimate.
11. A government agent who does something without legitimate authority is no less of a crook than would be someone not affiliated with government who does the same thing.
12. A government agent who covers up the crimes of another government agent becomes complicit in the lesser of (1) what he believes those crimes to be, or (2) what they actually are.
13. Denouncing an illegitimate government is not anarchistic. To the contrary, those who oppose anarchy must oppose the anarchists in an illegitimate government.

The Constitution is actually pretty simple. What's hard is trying to twist the Constitution so as to maintain the pretense that the government's behavior is legitimate. Drop the pretense, and the boundaries of legitimate government become much clearer.

[Noumenon]

The con-con route is bowling in the nitro factory.

Yep. Too easily hi-jacked by Alinskyite scum. One of those 'be careful what you ask for' items.

Thinking along the lines of Sun Tzu - our domestic enemies have two gigantic blind spots. The first is their overweening arrogance - their belief that they are entitled to exert their dominion over every aspect of human thought and endeavor. The second is their inability to comprehend the values that inspire our love of country and respect for our Creator. The values that inspire patriots and heroes.

This will lead them to do a lot of breathtakingly stupid, oppressive and dangerous things. We're seeing some of this already.

The upside is that there'll be no lack of material for your next book. If we all survive this.

[Noumenon]

Excellent summary. Should be required reading for a pass-fail citizenship course. If you don’t pass, then no vote, no benefits of citizenship.

[Travis McGee]

And if there’s a functioning currency system, to make writing worth the effort.

[Noumenon]

Well, there’s always barter. How many chickens for that next novel?

[Repeal The 17th]

This is from 1952?
Dang, I was a one-year old.
Who’d a thunk it?

[Travis McGee]

Chickens might get messy and stinky in the mail system. If there is a mail system.

[DuncanWaring]

Makes you a year older than me.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks dynachrome. Truly a timeless article noumenon!

Not exactly 10th Amendment but a great article nonetheless; certainly something for us I believe in the vanguard to give some serious thought to. Glenn Beck made a good point on his show a day or two ago: Looking ahead at potential scenarios, consider your options and make your decision beforehand based on the various scenarios. Be prepared. No surprises.

[pissant]

BUMP

[DuncanWaring]

[Blood of Tyrants]

Through two very small blurbs, i.e. the “interstate commerce clause” and the “health and welfare clause”, the federal government has seized massive amounts of power that far exceed the true scope of the Constitution. It is ridiculous that the federal government even THINKS they have the power to seize and redistribute trillions of dollars and to federalize the entire health care industry on mere PIECES of sentences in the Constitution. If we had a judiciary that gave a damned for the Constitution, they would have slapped down the vast majority of legislation as unconstitutional decades ago.

[TheOldLady]

bump

[djf]

In 1776, we were hounded by tyrants 3000 miles away.

Same deal today. They’re just closer.

[Tatze]

Ping and Bump for later read.

[ForGod'sSake]

It is ridiculous that the federal government even THINKS they have the power to seize and redistribute trillions of dollars and to federalize the entire health care industry on mere PIECES of sentences in the Constitution.

Here's the problem - in a nutshell from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION

BTW, based on other articles, these numbers are VERY conservatve. Some have the unfunded liability of Medicare alone at more than, get this, One Hundred Trillion Dollars!

It is nothing more than their unconstitutional efforts to fix an unconstitutionally created problem they initiated in the first place. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid along with a gaggle of other social "reforms" have yielded what some call the "Medicare Monster". These programs, especially Medicare, are black holes promulgated by unconscionable nonsense from earlier "progressive" movements such that we are now in technical bankruptcy.

If we had a judiciary that gave a damned for the Constitution, they would have slapped down the vast majority of legislation as unconstitutional decades ago.

The SCOTUS? They were apparently co-opted by Potomac Fever decades ago. The States, acting on our behalf may be our last and best hope.

[neverdem]

Thanks, bfl

[Noumenon]

Closer than we might think