It means I believe in the Constitution.
Yea? Good for you, but the Feds don't and they have broken the contract. Now it is a Lie and Swear contract. Congress lies and SCOTUS swears to it. This is not the limited and enumerated Fed that the States, and the people, authorized.
I guess you do not want to answer the question I asked.
But since you brought up the Constitution, I wonder if you would indicate where it says in the Constitution that a State doesn't have the right to withdraw from the Compact.
ML/NJ
Of course secession is constitutional, but the War was still right: a liberty-loving nation cannot abide slavery.
Let me illustrate. Suppose a man kills his parents to gain an inheritance. If he throws himself on the mercy of the court as a orphan, should we listen to him? What about the inheritance? Rather than set the man free with his ill-gotten gains, the court will rely on the equitable requirement of “clean hands.” The doctrine is often stated as “those seeking equity must do equity” or “equity must come with clean hands”. The man will receive no mercy and will be treated as having predeceased his parents in the matter of succession.
Likewise, the South had a right to secede in order to preserve slavery, just as the murderous heir had a right to inherit. Those with unclean hands, those who contravene the rights of others, cannot complain that their rights have not been vindicated. Of course not; justice demands that they not profit from their own perfidy.
The War Between the States was a righteous war, and we better encompassed our ideals by enduring it.
ML/NJ
Oh really?
Let's see what a fellow who actually participated in the construction of that Constitution has to say on the matter.
Let it be remembered then, that the business of the federal Convention was not local, but general – not limited to the views and establishments of a single state, but coextensive with the continent and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent sovereignties. (emphasis added)
In common parlance, indeed, it is generally applied to petty associations for the ease and convenience of a few individuals, but in its enlarged sense it will comprehend the government of Pennsylvania, the existing Union of the states, and even this projected system is nothing more than a formal act of incorporation. (emphasis added)
James Wilson’s Speech at the State House 6 October 1787
Natural Born Citizen clause excluded, of course. Right???
I live smack in the middle of Texas, and have, all my life.My thoughts are the Austin paper is one of the most liberal crap newspapers in the nation. And if us Texans decide to secede, Pelosi’s bunch can pass several hundred more laws against it and we will ignore those, too. And we have enough military and oil refineries here that we have plenty of leverage. This ain’t 1860,and I’d like to see what branch of the keystone cops Eric Holder would send here to enforce Zero’s dictatorship.
Nevertheless, we have reached the point in this country where what is legal is what you can get away with. And that applies to the states as much as it does the federal government.
IMO, it is past time for the states to challenge the feds. It’s time for us to find out if the power balance between the states and the federal government can be altered in the direction/favor of the states. Which, I believe would be more in keeping with the intent and wording of the Constitution.
“Doe this mean that you do not believe in the Declaration of Independence?
It means I believe in the Constitution.”
Poor sap...