Old Elvis and JFK (played by Ossie Davis Jr in an inspired bit of casting) team up at a small town Texas nursing home to fight the mummy that's preying on the life energy of the inhabitants.
Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
I'm sure you are not alone. My husband, as well as many other husbands would also view it as such. However, the particular porno shot presented by the popcorn section was a deliberate attempt to promote gutter behavior, for the bathing beauty was about ready to discard her bikini bottoms. And this is all the crap that is floating around the airwaves. There are just as many folks willing to take the bait as there are those who put it out for all to see. I'm also quite certain a deliberate attempt was made to do some pitting of so and so, against so and so. So, in the end the perpertrators are dumber than a box of rocks...
And how nice for them. But ratifying the Constitution did not make them a state. It took a vote in Congress on February 18, 1791 to admit Vermont as a state effective March 4, 1791.
Note that they expected to receive the full benefits enjoyed by other states in the Union, not a reduced set of priviledges and immunities that you have alleged.
And once Congress allowed them to be admitted they did.
Yes, well we all know that you believe that to be true.
Well then Professor Ramsey, assuming he actually existed, is as wrong as you are. Must make him proud, the acorn not falling far from the tree and all.
free dixie,sw
fwiw, everyone here has figured out that you're nothing except a PROPAGANDIST for the DAMNyankee elitists.
free dixie,sw
The President did not violate the Constitution, he has authority based on his responsibilty to stop rebellion.
The Congress supported his actions.
Bush is going to through the same issue with wire-tapping, with the opposition using the Courts in an attempt to hamstring his efforts to defend the U.S.
I take it you haven't read Article 1, section10 which removes the right of any state to act as a sovereign nation. Including entering into a Confederation or making a compact with another state. As long as states remain in the Union, they are bound by that section of the Constitution. The Constitution does not apply to Canadian provinces or states that have withdrawn from the Constitutional compact. When states withdraw their delegation of powers to the federal government and resume governing themselves, they are no longer bound by any limitations in the Constitution.
The fact is that they cannot withdraw and no where does it state in the Constitution that they can.
What the Constitution does say is that they cannot form compacts or Confederations.
Interesting how you read what is not there but not what is.
Canada never entered into the Union and gave up its rights to have compacts and Confederations.
From a US Supreme Court finding in Penhallow v. Doane's Adm'rs, 3 U.S. 54 (1795) [Thanks, 4CJ for finding this]: As long as she [New Hampshire] continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy. Withdraw herself! No approval required from any other state to withdraw and no armies marching into the state to force it to remain in the Union. Get it? These were Founders saying this, not folks from a later time like yourself trying to put their spin on the Constitution.
Since when is the Union a Confederacy?
The Union made the Articles of Confederation more binding and permanent then the Articles.
The fact that New Hemphsire agreed to the Constitution means she was bound to it.
When New England attempted secession, it was the South that stated that they were not able to do so-and they were right.
A State can no more withdraw from the Union then it can be ejected from the Union.
Interesting, that wasn't mentioned either in the Constitution either, but no one questions that it is impossible to do that!
Let's hope the day doesn't come when a government as intrusive and oppressive as the CSA again feels that free American citizens are not to be trusted with firearms.
And the real turncoats to Tennessee were the governor and his group of slavery-worshipping politicians who took Tennessee out of the Union against the expressed will of the people.
fyi, we TRUE southerners have NO respect for the so-called "unionists" in the old dixie, any more than we do for today's TURNCOATS/collaborators against the southland.
free dixie,sw
Of course not, but that's not the question. The question is whether states that have been admitted since 1865 BELIEVE that they can leave at their whim, despite Texas v. White. You claim that they believe they can. I'd like to see some evidence to that effect.
some years ago, in the face of MULTIPLE MILLIONS of MURDERS of the UNBORN (ordered by the USSC!), i thought that MIGHT be the spark that took at least SOME states out of the union.
otoh, i truly believe that at 60YO, that i will live to see LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AZATLAN established from the former states of AZ,CA,CO,NM,NV,OR & WA.i believe this will happen in 10-20 years.
UNLESS the rest of the states/the federal government decides to prosecute a CIVIL WAR, that will make the "Late Unpleasantness of 1861-65" look like a Sunday School picnic, Azatlan will be FREE. (imVho, the NEW & MUCH improved SOUTHRON REPUBLIC will PEACEFULLY secede shortly after that.)
fwiw, i believe that my 2YO niece will live to raise her family in a FREE southland.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
But over a dozen have been admitted, none of them apparently thinking to mention that they think they can leave at their whim. You'd think that somewhere, sometime, one of them would have said "Despite what Texas v. White says, we're joining the union only with the understanding that we can leave anytime we want." You'd think that, especially after the Civil War, they'd make that clear. If they believed it, of course.
Old Elvis and JFK (played by Ossie Davis Jr in an inspired bit of casting) team up at a small town Texas nursing home to fight the mummy that's preying on the life energy of the inhabitants.
imVho, the secession of AZATLAN will show you that the union is ANYTHING but perpetual.
free dixie,sw
a.MOST people aren't ANGRY enough at the central government to "vote with their feet" (but let national GUN CONFISCATION take place as it did in AUS & you'll see either secession or OPEN warfare!) &
b.MOST people believe that the TENTH AMENDMENT means PRECISELY what the plain text says.
SECESSION is NOT one of the POWERS of the STATES that was ceded to the federal government. (FYI, a UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision of the USSC does NOT alter what the plain text says!)
free dixie,sw
My point is that your belief that states that have joined the union since Texas v. White still believe that they can leave the union any time they wish is incorrect. I've seen nothing from you to change that.
mVho, the secession of AZATLAN will show you that the union is ANYTHING but perpetual.
Why isn't Texas on your list? They seem a lot more likely to be part of this Aztlan than, say, Washington or Oregon.
also TX will NOT be majority Hispanic by 2020. (btw, our Latinos are "TEJANOS", rather than "RECONQUISTAS".)
fwiw, TEXANS are UNIQUE in the country.
free dixie,sw
And if the state votes to secede anyway, will you become a "turncoat"?
also TX will NOT be majority Hispanic by 2020.
But Oregon will?
fwiw, TEXANS are UNIQUE in the country.
Less so every day.
Why does anyone need to have a point? Since when have YOU ever had a point that was recognizable to anyone with any sense at all?
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.