AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

You should have addressed your post to the Senile Setanta also, Ican. He does not agree that the federal government can override the states( only in Roe vs. Wade)

You're right!

Genoves, you just inspired me to again raise another question. Does Setanta or anuyone else believe the states can secede if the federal government breaks its contract with the states. What contract is that, one might ask? It's the Constitution. The Constitution of the USA as amended is a contract between each state and the federal government. I should think that when the federal government repeatedly violates that contract with one or more states, those states have the right to secede. The federal government is in fact repeatedly violating that contract as specified in the 5th Amendment.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Obama and his MAL (i.e., Modern American Liberal) government is depriving persons of their property (e.g., money, stock, bonds) without due process of law, and is threatening to take private property (e.g., money, businesses) for alleged public use without just compensation.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

You're right!

Genoves, you just inspired me to again raise another question. Does Setanta or anuyone else believe the states can secede if the federal government breaks its contract with the states.

Go ahead and try, would be my suggestion; and see how far your rights can carry you.

I would carefully ask myself, 'self, what happened to the last group who tried this stupid idea?'

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ic an- The half blind Cyclops does not understand that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bush vs, Gore rested on the fact that the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT violated the Fourteenth Amendment by proposing a recount that was standardless. If \the moronic Cyclops wishes, I will quote from the decision. His last post was entirely irrevalent.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Stick in your diseased anus, Cyclops. That has no bearing on Bush v. Gore or are you so brain damaged that you can't keep track of the direction of a discussion.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, my point about the 24th Amendment is that it too contradicts the claim that the federal government does not have any lawful constitutional powers to over ride some state election actions.

Recounting some but not all federal election votes, when authorized by a state supreme court, can be over riden by the federal supreme court according to the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Denying some voters in an election for electoral votes of that state a recount granted to others, is abridging the privileges of those voters.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Go ahead and try, would be my suggestion; and see how far your rights can carry you.

I would carefully ask myself, 'self, what happened to the last group who tried this stupid idea?'

If I were to convince the Texas state legislature to vote to secede, I would simultaneously convince them not to fire any shots at any federal fort after declaring their secession.

Hell, that 1861 firing of shots at a federal fort by a member of the Confederacy is what started the civil war, not the declarations of secessions. Lincoln would not have gone to war against the Confederacy if they hadn't fired those shots. In fact before those shots were fired Lincoln started to negotiate with the Confederacy.

Instead, I would recommend the Texas legislature and/or governor take their case to the federal supreme court. Win lose or draw, no one has to kill anyone over this matter of Obama and the rest of the MALs violating the Constitution.

However, whatever the Supreme Court's decision, a complete disclosure of what the Obama-MAL gangsters were doing would be revealed to the entire voting public.

3 Replies

White House Smacks Gingrich for calling Sotomayor a "Racist"

Quote:

"I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," said Gibbs. "I think... when people of American and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker that they will come to the same conclusion as the president did... I think that when people get a chance to look at her record, I feel certain that partisan politics will take a back seat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record and I think that that's what every Supreme Court and judicial nominee deserves."

___________________

Gingrich's attack is but one example of the hatchet job that the Republicans are pulling on Sonia Sotomayor. A few days ago, RNC Chairman Steele announced that the Republicans were going to be classy and dignified. It doesn't appear that the Republicans heard his speech or received the party memo.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Go ahead and try, would be my suggestion; and see how far your rights can carry you.

I would carefully ask myself, 'self, what happened to the last group who tried this stupid idea?'

If I were to convince the Texas state legislature to vote to secede, I would simultaneously convince them not to fire any shots at any federal fort after declaring their secession.

Hell, that 1861 firing of shots at a federal fort by a member of the Confederacy is what started the civil war, not the declarations of secessions. Lincoln would not have gone to war against the Confederacy if they hadn't fired those shots. In fact before those shots were fired Lincoln started to negotiate with the Confederacy.

Instead, I would recommend the Texas legislature and/or governor take their case to the federal supreme court. Win lose or draw, no one has to kill anyone over this matter of Obama and the rest of the MALs violating the Constitution.

However, whatever the Supreme Court's decision, a complete disclosure of what the Obama-MAL gangsters were doing would be revealed to the entire voting public.

Would you instruct your soldiers (what soldiers?) to resist the federal troops, stationed in Kileen and San Antonio, to stand down when they marched into the Capital building in Austin to seize it? Texas, large as she is, has no independent ability to resist the Federal government in any way when it comes to military force. There would be no confrontation, b/c your side has nothing to fight with.

It's pretty obvious you haven't thought this through very well.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

White House Smacks Gingrich for calling Sotomayor a "Racist"

Quote:
"I think it is probably important for anyone involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," said Gibbs. "I think... when people of American and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker that they will come to the same conclusion as the president did... I think that when people get a chance to look at her record, I feel certain that partisan politics will take a back seat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record and I think that that's what every Supreme Court and judicial nominee deserves."

___________________

Gingrich's attack is but one example of the hatchet job that the Republicans are pulling on Sonia Sotomayor. A few days ago, RNC Chairman Steele announced that the Republicans were going to be classy and dignified. It doesn't appear that the Republicans heard his speech or received the party memo.

Yeah, the Sotomayor nomination is really turning into a gold mine. Conservative commentators just can't help but let their inner sexist and racist come out, and the Republicans who are in office can't stay far enough away from such comments; so now they are fighting each other, and damn, it's fun to watch!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican- You are quite right. Any good legal scholar will tell you that the Founders were very worried about a central government that was too strong. That is why the Constitution is written giving specified powers to the federal goverment and reserving those that are not specified to the states.

However, as I am sure you are aware, the Commerce Clause has been utilized to pervert the intent of the originalists.

You may be aware, Ican, of a movement in Montana to void the interference of the Federal Government with the manufacture of guns and ammunition in Montana. The movement states that the guns and ammunition made in Montana will be specified legally as remaining in Montana thus getting past the Commerce clause.

NOTE:

Montana fires a warning shot over states’ rights
State is trying to trigger a battle over gun control " and make a point

updated 3:54 p.m. CT, Wed., April 29, 2009
HELENA, Mont. - Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control " and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Instead, I would recommend the Texas legislature and/or governor take their case to the federal supreme court.

How could they take it to the USSC ican?

If they secede then they are no longer US citizens and would have no standing in US courts, under your bastardized reading, don't you think?

It seems the perfect Catch-22. They have to secede before they can claim they are harmed by not allowing them to do it and they can't file as US citizens once they secede.

3 Replies

@parados,

Paradox can't read. Montana is testing the Commerce Clause as we speak:

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra L A W is missing out on a monied carreer. She already knows how many Senators are going to "savage" Sotomayor. But Debra L A W is a nincompoop and is obviously completely unware that Senators whose states contain a very large number of Hispanics will give Sotomayor a pass.

Debra L A W apparently does not know that Senators, just as Slick Willie did, live and die with poll numbers. The Senators who read the polls in their states( especially those who are up for election in 2010) that show that white voters are very upset at the nomination of Sotomayor and that there are not enough Latino votes in their states to counter this, will be much rougher on Soto than the Senators who receive the opposite reading.

Gingrich, et. al. is speaking to the choir and those who are labelled as CENTRISTS or INDEPENDENTS.

Debra L A W, who only reads left wing garbage is not aware of the following:

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, the Sotomayor nomination is really turning into a gold mine. Conservative commentators just can't help but let their inner sexist and racist come out, and the Republicans who are in office can't stay far enough away from such comments; so now they are fighting each other, and damn, it's fun to watch!

Cycloptichorn

They're attacking her now for commenting on the ability to draw on life experiences when hearing race and gender discrimination cases. Here's what Alito said during his confirmation hearing:

Alito: My family’s immigrant experience shaped judicial outlook

Quote:

In an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, who had asked Alito to discuss how his personal experiences shows that "he cared for the little guy," Alito said that his family’s experience as immigrants influenced his outlook on immigration cases.

[Alito said]: "And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant " and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases " I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position… When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

The Video can be viewed at the Link provided above.

0 Replies

@genoves,

Re: Debra Law (Post 3663503)
Debra L A W is missing out on a monied carreer. She already knows how many Senators are going to "savage" Sotomayor. But Debra L A W is a nincompoop and is obviously completely unware that Senators whose states contain a very large number of Hispanics will give Sotomayor a pass.

Debra L A W apparently does not know that Senators, just as Slick Willie did, live and die with poll numbers. The Senators who read the polls in their states( especially those who are up for election in 2010) that show that white voters are very upset at the nomination of Sotomayor and that there are not enough Latino votes in their states to counter this, will be much rougher on Soto than the Senators who receive the opposite reading.

Gingrich, et. al. is speaking to the choir and those who are labelled as CENTRISTS or INDEPENDENTS.

Debra L A W, who only reads left wing garbage is not aware of the following:

Politicians, of all stripes, especially during the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, play to the audience they need.

Why are you so stupid, Debra L A W?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I would carefully ask myself, 'self, what happened to the last group who tried this stupid idea?'

Absolutely nothing happened to them.
And if you were half as smart as you like to think you are, you would know that.

Unless, you actually think the Confederate States were the last group to secede from the Union.

If you truly think that, you couldnt be more wrong.

http://www.newser.com/story/14639/lakotas-secede-from-union.html

Quote:

Some Lakota tribesman, led by veteran American Indian activist Russell Means, have declared a sovereign nation within US borders. “We are now a free country and independent of the United States,” Means told the Rapid City Journal yesterday, adding, "This is all completely legal." The group informed the State Department of its “unilateral withdrawal” earlier this week.

Notice the date...Dec 21, 07

So, since nothing happened to them, why do you think the govt would do anything to Texas if they voted to secede?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Would you instruct your soldiers (what soldiers?) to resist the federal troops, stationed in Kileen and San Antonio, to stand down when they marched into the Capital building in Austin to seize it? Texas, large as she is, has no independent ability to resist the Federal government in any way when it comes to military force. There would be no confrontation, b/c your side has nothing to fight with.

Thats exactly what the British thought in the 1770's.
How did that end again?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Would you instruct your soldiers (what soldiers?) to resist the federal troops, stationed in Kileen and San Antonio, to stand down when they marched into the Capital building in Austin to seize it? Texas, large as she is, has no independent ability to resist the Federal government in any way when it comes to military force. There would be no confrontation, b/c your side has nothing to fight with.

Thats exactly what the British thought in the 1770's.
How did that end again?

Did you think about your history before you posted this?

We won on luck and the help of the French. Think Texas is going to be able to convince any European country, or any country really, to help? And that we they would somehow be able to circumvent our Navy to provide it?

Our opponent also had practically no resources to fund the war and extremely long supply lines. Is that the case now? Obviously not.

Think, guys! Think! Then post.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I would carefully ask myself, 'self, what happened to the last group who tried this stupid idea?'

Absolutely nothing happened to them.
And if you were half as smart as you like to think you are, you would know that.

Unless, you actually think the Confederate States were the last group to secede from the Union.

If you truly think that, you couldnt be more wrong.

http://www.newser.com/story/14639/lakotas-secede-from-union.html

Quote:
Some Lakota tribesman, led by veteran American Indian activist Russell Means, have declared a sovereign nation within US borders. “We are now a free country and independent of the United States,” Means told the Rapid City Journal yesterday, adding, "This is all completely legal." The group informed the State Department of its “unilateral withdrawal” earlier this week.

Notice the date...Dec 21, 07

So, since nothing happened to them, why do you think the govt would do anything to Texas if they voted to secede?

They are not a State. We were discussing States seceding from the union for reasons of violation of the Federal-state contract, not individual groups declaring themselves sovereign.. If you paid closer attention to Ican and my conversation, you would have noticed this before posting.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

see if i ran the circus that's not how it would work, any texans that wanted to secede could pack their bags and get the **** out of the country, the land belongs to america and therefore all those who still call themselves americans

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know