Posted on 01/10/2013 7:14:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I too have nothing in common with the FedGov™ boot lickers that post here. You can see the types that would become good national socialists if given the chance....Union Uber Alles? Nay, Sic Semper Tyrannis
Of course they can, if by US you mean federal government and not the Several States.
Further, such would not be treason: treason is explicitly against the Several States.
Much of the FedGov's power is predicated on the Statist might-makes-right philosophy -- so then, should the States decide to abolish the FedGov and have the strength to do so, they are ultimately in the right, no?
But even if that is not the case, then it is the case when one considers that one is not bound to abide by a legal agreement that is already broken by the other party; for example: say you and I had a contract that in exchange for $500/mo for 10 years you would manufacture three-dozen firearm per year for me, delivered at the end of each year -- and after the second year you refused to give me the firearms -- am I still obligated to pay you $500/mo for the remaining 8 years?
By your "perpetual union" argument from the Articles of Confederation: yes. From all other law: no.
So then, should the federal government refuse to abide by the Constitution there is no lawful reason to support it; this is the sort of government we have. Though most people have been indoctrinated (thanks to public schools) to believe that authorities are always right -- that nothing required by them is unreasonable.
You know - it’s funny. Every time you get your rhetorical butt kicked on these pages you fall back to this lamer “FedGov™ boot lickers” insult.
Even if true, if you had to lick boots wouldn’t you prefer to be a “boot-licker” for a winning team than a rabble of total losers? Let there be zero doubt - you are every bit the boot licker - you just lick the boots of treasonous losers who died and rotted in their graves 150 years ago.
I am over the target...
No you’re not cva - you’re not even on the map. I guess I could cut you some slack because you’re obviously not too bright, but some of the crap you say is so goofy and so idiotic that it can’t go without mention.
But please - don’t go changing on my account ;-)
General Lee had deserters shot. So that shows that he was for coercion. So do you laud him or condemn him? Or is coercion only permitted for the slave power? Slavery devolved the power of the government to punish with use of force to private agents, acting in their own interests, or delegating that power to other private agents.
I would have put General Lee on trial, not for treason, but for ordering, with pretended legal authority, the execution of deserters from the pretended confederate army. If I could I would have charged him separately for each of over a thousand rebels that he had murdered for the pretended crime of desertion from the pretended confederate army, or the units provided by those acting in the pretense of states in insurrection.
Yes, I would have had him prosecuted for ordering murder of southern soldiers accused of desertion, in violation of US law. Evidence would have been difficult: The south burned many of their records to hide their crimes.
That is how brave they were, to boldly destroy historical records, lest it be used as evidence.
So if you think the southern states had a case that the constitution was being violated, why did they not seek restitution in the supreme court? Certainly the Taney court was happy to rule in favor of the slave power on other cases.
They didn’t file because they had no case.
Since they had no case, the constitution was not being violated.
Since the constitution was not being violated, they had no legitimate reason to pretend to secession.
Even if they had a reason for secession, the process by which secession would have to take place to be legal would be: a law, a successful supreme court case, a constitutional amendment, or perhaps a treaty with a foreign nation.
They chose force, because logic, law, reason and honor were all on the side of the US government, and against the slave power.
And it still is.
No, you just gave yourself another self inflicted wound.
What are you smoking?!
The Federal Government with Obamacare has made a new super-slave of us: we must now, under penalty of law, purchase particular products that government delineates; we must surrender our fortunes under threat of imprisonment or death; out paychecks garnished by taxes before we ever see them...
Read this and note well how taxes/mandates impacted the Revolution.
More importantly, the Declaration was an explanation for what was already an established fact.
The American Revolution began 15 months before the DoI was issued. The DoI was a formal, very well reasoned, and unified declaration of the 13 British Colonies as to their causes and moral justifications for Revolution against the Crown. It was so compelling, that a large percentage of the British political class agreed with them!
There were no legalistic dodges or pretensions that British law allowed it. Every man who signed it knew they put their lives on the line by doing so, and willing did so.
To compare the DoI with the watered down complaints the slavers pumped out attempting to justify secession from a nation who had done nothing to them is beyond obscene.
They used the election of Lincoln and sectional differences to do what they had long wanted to do... create a slave empire where they had unlimited power.
Lincoln's election was simply a convenient excuse for what they had been attempting for over 3 decades. They thought Lincoln would be a weak and ineffective President who would not be able to stop them.
They were so arrogant, so full of bravado, so ignorant of what they were unleashing on themselves, and so-so tragically wrong.
“Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it.
--- Sam Houston, Governor of Texas, April 19, 1861.
I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”
Source: http://declaringamerica.com/houston-address-on-secession-1860/
It really was one of the greatest miscalculations in history. The only greater I can think of was Hitler invading Russia and then Declaring War on the United States within six months of each other.
What the hell could have they been thinking?
Don’t worry too much about Obamacare. States are refusing to set up state exchanges, so the taxes, that can only be levied through the state exchanges can not be inflicted. A poorly written law, already amended twice.
It only survived the early ‘pre implementation’ appeals as a tax with the increased deference given to theoretical questions. A real challenge with a real aggrieved party, and it will fall.
Of course cutting and pasting through the entire law would be an 8th Amendment violation, so it will be simply over turned.
If you can get enough political support for a radical move like secession, it should be easy to get majority support to correct your other grievances.
Or you admit that you really don’t care about politics, just gnawing the bones of old grudges.
I also suggest that Obamacare taxes passed in 2009 provide no justification for rebellion or insurrection in 1861.
One more thing.
Treason consists of levying war against the several states (meaning the states which accept the constitution)
which is what the pretended confederacy and its deluded followers.
And Lee, far from drawing his sword only to defend Virginia, invaded the northern states twice, and ordered the execution of thousands of southern men for the false crime of refusing to continue in treason.
This means that it CANNOT be Treason to levy war against the federal institution -- the several States and the federal government are not the same.
You said: "They chose force, because logic, law, reason and honor were all on the side of the US government, and against the slave power. And it still is."
It is therefore you who are trying to justify statist tendencies in current government, denying that even the blatant animosity the federal government shows to inalienable rights (as explicitly cited in the Declaration of Independence) is cause/justification for the alteration/abolition of governance that is proscribed.
Yes, it does mean the federal government, the one created by the union of the several states.
Rather like asserting that John Brown didn’t attack Virginia because he only conducted operations against slavery in a single county of that state.
Of course the slave power had him hung for treason against Virginia.
He had them that scared. By contrast, Jeff Davis was so discredited after the war he was released to write his books of fiction. His wife became the great friend of Julia Grant.
I care less about politics than I do about Justice, and yes the Law plays into that, especially Constitutional law.
Your statist ilk are the sort who would tell me I am dead wrong to be concerned about the local [city] courthouses posting "no weapons - prosecutors will be prosecuted." Even if I explain that the NM Constitution prohibits (a) any law abridging the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, or (b) "No county or municipality shall, in any way, regulate an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
It is not that taking a gun to court is a great idea -- it's that submitting yourself to disarmament, especially when the common excuse "but the police/guards will protect you" is legally nothing (the SCOTUS has so ruled, multiple times), is a really bad idea. It is a bad idea to allow for these exceptions precisely because, even though it "means well" or is "common sense", it establishes a precedent which is nothing less than the assertation that the supreme law (constitution) is subject to whim, 'rules', and convenience.
No, I am not justifying statist tendencies in the current government. I merely point out that secession has a high bar, one higher than merely overturning a law or two.
If you think that you can organize a secession, then show us your skill and organize the repeal of a law or two. Demonstrate a few baby steps before you promise the moon.
No -- if it were the union, then it would not be plural (note 'their enemies', not 'its enemies')... this is basic English.
Rather like asserting that John Brown didn’t attack Virginia because he only conducted operations against slavery in a single county of that state.
I'm not familiar w/ John Brown; so won't comment.
Of course the slave power had him hung for treason against Virginia.
Treason against Virginia, not the several states.
He had them that scared. By contrast, Jeff Davis was so discredited after the war he was released to write his books of fiction.
So fiction-writer equals [or is implied by] 'discredited'?
I guess then that anyone who likes writing fiction is a loon, no?
I somehow don’t see how letting an accused murderer carry heat into a court room with his homeboys is likely to end well.
Perhaps you would also suggest that convicted felons in jail also should not be deprived of their rights?
If you want to move to Antarctica and set up your own lunatic government, feel free. If you want to run for office, and change the rules of civil procedure, go for it. Perhaps you can convince a few other lunatics in your county to go along with you. The rest of us will sit back and watch the show.
If you want to claim that the laws, as enforced by judges over the limited confines of its courtroom, or in jails is somehow a violation of your rights, then run for office, make that argument to the people, and try to get elected on that basis.
Good Luck!
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.