14
   

Arizona loves the Constitution so much....

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Mar, 2011 11:52 pm
@gungasnake,
Lord it is amusing that the right wingers had so must misinformation that they created between themselves out of thin air and that they are so willing to be traitors to the US.

Oh I know facts are not the strong point of the right wings nuts however Texas indeed try to exercise their claimed rights to leave the union already and was force back along with all the other southern states.

Texas or no other state have a right to leave the US and fools can made up claims all they care to but that is not going to change.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Mar, 2011 11:58 pm
@gungasnake,
http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html

From: Joe DiMaggio <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Date: December 1995


Ok, I got off my butt and went to a bookstore, where I found a fine compendium of Texana entitled "The Truth About Texas" by Anne Dingus (IHNW, IJLS "Anne Dingus") ISBN 0-87719-282-0.

Here's what it has to say about secession:

Texas does not have the right to secede, any more than any other state does. Which is not to say that Texas, or any other state, can't secede if it has a mind to; after all, 11 states did back in 1861. Many modern Texans have the vague idea - as did most secessionists - that because Texas entered as a former republic, it retained the right to leave the Union if it saw fit. However, no such clause appears in the congressional act authorizing Texas to join the Union. Because it was once independent, because it at one time did secede frmo the Union, and because its ideology is far different from that of the rest of the US, Texas has always clung to the idea of a guaranteed right of secession as a mark of its specialness and as a source of reassurance in case all else fails.

One privelege Texas does reserve, and a condition that appears in the resolution approving its statehood, is the option to subdivide itself into as many as four states (a total of five). But Texas is more likely to leave the Union again than to fragment its identity and its land.

On the Annexation of Texas:

Texans are justly proud of living in a state that was once an independant republic and that entered the Union by treaty, not by act of Congress. Surprise! Texas did *not* enter the Union by treaty. Though at the time of its admission the two countries were negotiating a treaty of annexation, President John Tyler, as one of his last acts in office, offered statehood under the terms drawn up by the House of Representatives. As a result, Texas got a better deal than it would have under the treaty. For example, it became a state immediately, without having to pass through a probationary period as a mere territory.

The terms of the congressional bill included a requirement that Texas cede to the US all forts, barracks, navy yards, and other property pertaining to the public defense, but it also allowed Texas to keep its public lands, a generous condition rarely found in annexation treaties. However, in exchange for that concession, Texas also had to maintain responsibility for its own public debt.




0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 12:01 am
@BillRM,
Y didn't u address my questions, Bill???
U ignored them.


BillRM wrote:
Sorry David but the states once more had no power of nullification toward any Federal law
and it does not matter one little bit if they think it is un-constitution or not.
I 'll stand on what I said b4. I don t wanna be too redundant.
I guess that u did not understand my points,
or not some of them. At least we can agree
that in the end, the USSC will resolve it.







BillRM wrote:
If any state act otherwise and try to interfere with Federal law the full power of the Federal government
will be used to end stop any state nullification and rightly so.
Maybe; not necessarily. That depends on a few things.
It is very UNfair of u to judge it to be "rightly so"
when u do not even know what the law IS.
That is the purest ` prejudice on your part.






BillRM wrote:
As a lawyer you should feel ashame of yourself as this is first year law school.

Hell I never been to law school and I know this so what is wrong with you David?
Attending law school opened my eyes
and changed my mind about a few things.
Constitutional Law was my favorite class; had a wonderful time with it.

Maybe u don 't need to attend it because u already know
it all instinctively ??
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 12:13 am
@gungasnake,
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm

The Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress March 1, 1845
(U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 797-8)

Resolved . . . , That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2. That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-sic degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited.

3. That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with that Republic; then,

Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.


The Program | People | Places | Events | Resources | Lesson Plans | Quiz
© 2001 THE WEST FILM PROJECT and WETA
Credits
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 12:16 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Maybe u don 't need to attend it because u already know
it all instinctively ??


Just a lifetime of reading anything that come within a few hundred yards of myself including law books.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 12:28 am
@BillRM,
David wrote:
Maybe u don 't need to attend it because u already know
it all instinctively ??
BillRM wrote:
Just a lifetime of reading anything that come within a few hundred yards of myself including law books.
U can rely on that, if u wanna.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 01:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
U can rely on that, if u wanna.


Seem to had work better then your law degree............at least in the area of states nullifications.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 08:55 am
The thing which makes this stuff more worrisome than it might otherwise be, aside from the demoshit party having devolved into a criminal enterprise that is, is the Russian government actually operating on the assumption that the United States is no longer a viable country and is going to split up, e.g.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

Pinarin of course is not just some hoodlum or skinhead; he's the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy.

My own feeling is that unless we can somehow implement the major reforms which would allow some third party to rise up and replace at least one of the two present parties, then Pinarin is probably right.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 09:22 am
@gungasnake,
Sorry the crazies like you are a small a very small percent of the population even if you have a whole cable "news" outlet of your very own.

Hell even in your states strong holds of unreason the damn Hispanics are out breeding you and in a generation or two will have taken over.

It would however be wonderful indeed if we could get all you guys all in one or two states and then send you on your way.

The only problem is that the super riches need you fools too badly to allow that to happen.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 04:00 pm
@BillRM,
David wrote:
U can rely on that, if u wanna.
BillRM wrote:
Seem to had work better then your law degree............at least in the area of states nullifications.
No. I was never involved in nullifications,
but I built a much enjoyed career with fairly decent
Revenue$ therefrom. I was a litigator. It was fun.
It was a good career for cash and freedom.

(My partner managed my office for me.)





David
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 04:24 pm
Trust gungasnaKKKe to fall into loopiness whenever possible. Punarin thought America would collapse and split apart last June. He seemed pretty firm about the date. The article snaKKKe cited was from 2008. Needless to say, the US didn't collapse on schedule. Sorry, snaKKKe. It wouldn't have been all bad, though. Had it happened under his scenario, Russia would have gotten Sarah Palin.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 10:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
No. I was never involved in nullifications,
but I built a much enjoyed career with fairly decent
Revenue$ therefrom. I was a litigator. It was fun.
It was a good career for cash and freedom.

(My partner managed my office for me.)[/quote

Read,

"I made a great living lying my ass off and if you think I'm going to change my habits now, you've got another think comin', Bub!"
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 08:34 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Trust gungasnaKKKe to fall into loopiness whenever possible. Punarin thought America would collapse and split apart last June. He seemed pretty firm about the date. The article snaKKKe cited was from 2008. Needless to say, the US didn't collapse on schedule. Sorry, snaKKKe. It wouldn't have been all bad, though. Had it happened under his scenario, Russia would have gotten Sarah Palin.
There is no doubt that the nation is rotten, fractured and as divided as before the civil war with less in common than we then had... The rich have been building their riches and securing the commonwealth for their own benefit by feeding our division and adding to it... This is contrary to an expressed aim of the constitution of perfect union, but it is also against all the aims of the constitution as stated, and like the Roman empire, has left us divided and conquered... While the obvious danger of this situation, that we are open to general conquest in our weakness, is grave; it is just as likely that we will fracture and fall into civil war for the benefit of the rich who want simple tyranny to replace the facade of democracy...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 07:21 pm
@Fido,
MontereyJack wrote:
Trust gungasnaKKKe to fall into loopiness whenever possible. Punarin thought America would collapse and split apart last June. He seemed pretty firm about the date. The article snaKKKe cited was from 2008. Needless to say, the US didn't collapse on schedule. Sorry, snaKKKe. It wouldn't have been all bad, though. Had it happened under his scenario, Russia would have gotten Sarah Palin.
Fido wrote:
There is no doubt that the nation is rotten, fractured and as divided as before the civil war with less in common than we then had... The rich have been building their riches and securing the commonwealth for their own benefit by feeding our division and adding to it... This is contrary to an expressed aim of the constitution of perfect union, but it is also against all the aims of the constitution as stated, and like the Roman empire, has left us divided and conquered... While the obvious danger of this situation, that we are open to general conquest in our weakness, is grave; it is just as likely that we will fracture and fall into civil war for the benefit of the rich who want simple tyranny to replace the facade of democracy...
U have GROSSLY misread the US Constitution,
projecting your own ideas onto it and then pretending
that thay came from the Founders.

The American Revolution was a libertarian revolution,
undermining & degrading the power of government
and snatching sovereignty away from government
and putting it into the hands of the CITIZENS who created the damned government, as their servant.

How well the citizens get along among themselves
is their private concern and it was never any of government's business.





David
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 07:35 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Sorry but the founding fathers never had a good opinion of the "mob" and wish for their betters to control them.

The model on how to do that was base on the roman republic system.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 08:41 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Sorry but the founding fathers never had a good opinion of the "mob"
No occasion for sorrow; that 's true.
Mobs r collectivistic.

The difference between a militia and a mob is organization.





BillRM wrote:
and wish for their betters to control them.
I deny that.
Thay were left to live, according to their own devices and luck.





BillRM wrote:
The model on how to do that was base on the roman republic system.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 09:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
How well the citizens get along among themselves
is their private concern and it was never any of government's business.

Wow... talk about projecting your own viewpoint on the Constitution David..

The government specifically is given power to decide disputes between citizens of different states. Perhaps you need to reread the constitution without that gun in your hand. Which by the way the government has a say in how you can use that gun against fellow citizens.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 10:40 pm
@parados,
Quote:
How well the citizens get along among themselves
is their private concern and it was never any of government's business.
parados wrote:
Wow... talk about projecting your own viewpoint on the Constitution David..

The government specifically is given power to decide disputes between citizens of different states.
I thawt we had in mind inter-personal relations in the same naborhood.




parados wrote:
Perhaps you need to reread the constitution without that gun in your hand.
Which by the way the government has a say in how you can use that gun against fellow citizens.
Well, no murders, yeah. I support that.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 01:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I deny that.
Thay were left to live, according to their own devices and luck.


Give me a break by the Adam Administration it was a crime to insult the President.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 06:30 am
@OmSigDAVID,
What you say of the constitution must have some truth to it because the government was offered as a means of achieving well stated goods, virtues, if you will, but the power over government was not given to the people, but to only a certain class of people who had in addition, extra protection for the privilege of property... You must understand, that while government was made aloof from the people with the addition of the Senate which is not directly democratic, and by the Supreme court which has all the character of kings for life, no account was made for the parties which are extra constitutional, and add immeasurably to the inertia of government, so that, to get government to do good, we must first convince whole national parties to move in that direction and they are opposed by parties pushing in the opposite direction... Considering that both parties are outside of government, that no party leadership is answerable to the people; is it right that they should stand between us and our goverrnment??? Is this fair, or intelligent, and is the fact that they are allowed to do so not a failure of the constitution???
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/01/2021 at 11:53:52