PDA

View Full Version : Missouri House votes for nullification of federal gun laws



pjohns
09-11-2013, 07:54 PM
The Missouri House has voted to override the governor's veto of legislation that would invalidate any federal law that "infringe[s] on the people's right to keep and bear arms." The vote was 109-49, thereby exceeding the two-thirds supermajority required: http://www.ktrs.com/news/local-news/item/10990-bill-that-nullifies-federal-gun-rules-a-step-closer-to-becoming-law

In order to become law, the bill must pass a similar hurdle in the Missouri state Senate.

If it does, it will mark just one more step on the road to nullification of federal laws...

Chris
09-11-2013, 08:02 PM
Good to hear. The states need to nullify more federal government intrusions.

This one is off though in that there's even a need to nullify federal intrusion when the Constitution says the right "shall not be infringed".




On edit, initially posted "feral government" -- must've been a Freudian slip.

Cigar
09-11-2013, 08:42 PM
But whatever you do, don't let just any American Vote

Cigar
09-11-2013, 08:52 PM
Failed

Agravan
09-11-2013, 10:16 PM
But whatever you do, don't let just any American Vote

Please show when and where any American was denied the right to vote besides your deluded fantasies.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 07:00 AM
Jay Nixon is a happy man. Yes, he just got over-ridden on a lot of vetoes, more than most state governors ever see. Yet Republican leaders just showed that they don't have the votes to pass truly game-changing legislation over the objections of a governor who was just re-elected in November by a clear margin.

The gun law was mostly politics -- it was completely impossible to enforce -- but the income tax setback is huge. This madness is gripping the midwest.

The modern infestation started in my state, Kansas. There, almost entirely for the purposes of pumping up his "I cut taxes" creds for an eventual White House run, Sam Brownback passed the most insane piece of tax reform imaginable. He essentially eliminated the income tax in stages, and the result will be about a solid $1 billion in annual revenue-loss when all's said.

Critical state funding areas -- education, criminal justice, corrections, public works, community action programs, transportation, and more -- are being bled dry to keep the budget balanced. The pain from this is being felt everywhere; tuition at state universities is up, school bus service is gone in many areas, roads are not being maintained, public transportation is in danger...

Yet it is spreading. Both because they are dominated by the same brand of politician and because they are legitimately afraid that Kansas will eventually pirate away job-creating businesses with these Pied Piper finances, Nebraska and Oklahoma are both considering similar measures with similar harmful consequences and Missouri seems to have just barely avoided it.

Not a good situation, but this is a victory I'll take.

Agravan
09-12-2013, 07:16 AM
Jay Nixon is a happy man. Yes, he just got over-ridden on a lot of vetoes, more than most state governors ever see. Yet Republican leaders just showed that they don't have the votes to pass truly game-changing legislation over the objections of a governor who was just re-elected in November by a clear margin.

The gun law was mostly politics -- it was completely impossible to enforce -- but the income tax setback is huge. This madness is gripping the midwest.

The modern infestation started in my state, Kansas. There, almost entirely for the purposes of pumping up his "I cut taxes" creds for an eventual White House run, Sam Brownback passed the most insane piece of tax reform imaginable. He essentially eliminated the income tax in stages, and the result will be about a solid $1 billion in annual revenue-loss when all's said.

Critical state funding areas -- education, criminal justice, corrections, public works, community action programs, transportation, and more -- are being bled dry to keep the budget balanced. The pain from this is being felt everywhere; tuition at state universities is up, school bus service is gone in many areas, roads are not being maintained, public transportation is in danger...

Yet it is spreading. Both because they are dominated by the same brand of politician and because they are legitimately afraid that Kansas will eventually pirate away job-creating businesses with these Pied Piper finances, Nebraska and Oklahoma are both considering similar measures with similar harmful consequences and Missouri seems to have just barely avoided it.

Not a good situation, but this is a victory I'll take.

Every time there is a budget cut, you guys complain about schools, teachers, cops losing their funding. There are plenty of areas to make the cuts to, but you guys deliberately choose those areas which you can exploit and use to political advantage. Do you cut legislator's salaries? No, you cut teacher's salaries. Do you cut down on expenses rung up by legislators? Nope, you cut back on police departments. Just like the "sequester" bullshit. Do dem's cut back on Obama's vacations or on the waste by our elected Senators and Congressmen's perks? No, they cut back on White House tours and anything that is visible to the public. There is more than enough money to fund the government that is needed. You guys just won't be happy until there is a 100% confiscatory tax rate and then you can give the money to those that YOU feel deserve it instead of the people that EARNED it.

jillian
09-12-2013, 07:18 AM
Good to hear. The states need to nullify more federal government intrusions.

This one is off though in that there's even a need to nullify federal intrusion when the Constitution says the right "shall not be infringed".




On edit, initially posted "feral government" -- must've been a Freudian slip.

the states CAN'T nullify federal laws.

you know, that whole constitutional thing again.

Agravan
09-12-2013, 07:24 AM
the states CAN'T nullify federal laws.

you know, that whole constitutional thing again.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 07:26 AM
Every time there is a budget cut, you guys complain about schools, teachers, cops losing their funding. There are plenty of areas to make the cuts to, but you guys deliberately choose those areas which you can exploit and use to political advantage. Do you cut legislator's salaries? No, you cut teacher's salaries. Do you cut down on expenses rung up by legislators? Nope, you cut back on police departments. Just like the "sequester" bullshit. Do dem's cut back on Obama's vacations or on the waste by our elected Senators and Congressmen's perks? No, they cut back on White House tours and anything that is visible to the public. There is more than enough money to fund the government that is needed. You guys just won't be happy until there is a 100% confiscatory tax rate and then you can give the money to those that YOU feel deserve it instead of the people that EARNED it.
That's a nice rant, but Republicans call all of the shots in Kansas. These choices were made by them.

jillian
09-12-2013, 07:27 AM
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

which has zero to do with the supremacy clause.


Article VI (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html), Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

Agravan
09-12-2013, 07:33 AM
which has zero to do with the supremacy clause.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

So, what you are saying is that the federal government can make any law, even outside of the powers granted by the Constitution, and we just have to suck it up? The federal government is supreme in everything? Damn, jilly-girl, you've got it bad.

Cigar
09-12-2013, 07:34 AM
Change has Come to America :grin:

Singularity
09-12-2013, 07:36 AM
So, what you are saying is that the federal government can make any law, even outside of the powers granted by the Constitution, and we just have to suck it up? The federal government is supreme in everything? Damn, jilly-girl, you've got it bad.
The federal government is supreme when the federal judiciary upholds its actions. Yeah, that's kinda how it works.

You might as well be like, the sun rises in the morning? you're really saying that? Damn, you've got it bad...

Agravan
09-12-2013, 07:38 AM
The federal government is supreme when the federal judiciary upholds its actions. Yeah, that's kinda how it works.
So there you have the case for secession that many states are considering.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 07:40 AM
So there you have the case for secession that many states are considering.
Bring it on. Put down your Gadsden flags and your tricorne hats and pick up your guns. See what happens.

jillian
09-12-2013, 07:46 AM
So, what you are saying is that the federal government can make any law, even outside of the powers granted by the Constitution, and we just have to suck it up? The federal government is supreme in everything? Damn, jilly-girl, you've got it bad.

there is a process for addressing laws that are claimed to be unconstitutional. it's called COURT challenges. you don't decide those things. thanks for playing.

and given that you don't know what you're talking about, i'd say the whole 'jilly-girl' thing looks kind of moronic, except maybe to your fellow wingers.

but if that's what it takes to make you feel like you have genitals, by all means, go to it.

jillian
09-12-2013, 07:48 AM
So there you have the case for secession that many states are considering.

no. the "states" aren't considering it. some morons IN certain states are considering it.

and how'd that whole secession thing work for you last time?

Agravan
09-12-2013, 08:48 AM
Bring it on. Put down your Gadsden flags and your tricorne hats and pick up your guns. See what happens.

Be careful what you wish for.

Agravan
09-12-2013, 08:51 AM
there is a process for addressing laws that are claimed to be unconstitutional. it's called COURT challenges. you don't decide those things. thanks for playing.

and given that you don't know what you're talking about, i'd say the whole 'jilly-girl' thing looks kind of moronic, except maybe to your fellow wingers.

but if that's what it takes to make you feel like you have genitals, by all means, go to it.

yeah, and "puddytat" is so much more mature on your part, ain't it, jilly-girl?
What? You can dish it out but can't take it? As far as genitalia is concerned, you people sure do seem to have an obsession with that, don't you? There, there, young lady. Someday, you may actually see some apart from your internet fantasies. One day, when you're all grown up. If that day ever comes.

Agravan
09-12-2013, 08:52 AM
no. the "states" aren't considering it. some morons IN certain states are considering it.

and how'd that whole secession thing work for you last time?

The last time, we were mostly an agrarian society and you were the industrialized ones. That is no longer the case. Bring it on.

Chris
09-12-2013, 09:01 AM
the states CAN'T nullify federal laws.

you know, that whole constitutional thing again.



Why sure they can, jillian.

You claim "that whole constitutional thing again", OK, what thing is that? Cite the Constitution, jillian, where is says anything about that thing, nullification.

Chris
09-12-2013, 09:02 AM
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Exactly. The Constitution defines the federal government, not federalism.

Chris
09-12-2013, 09:05 AM
which has zero to do with the supremacy clause.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause




IOW, it's not in the Constitution but what someone interprets it so.

That article has to do with treaties. It's a limited power.

Chris
09-12-2013, 09:07 AM
The federal government is supreme when the federal judiciary upholds its actions. Yeah, that's kinda how it works.

You might as well be like, the sun rises in the morning? you're really saying that? Damn, you've got it bad...



Sorry, but it's not, the people are supreme. We created the government and we can dismantle it. It's our right.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Singularity
09-12-2013, 09:20 AM
Be careful what you wish for.
I don't wish for anything beyond you shutting your mouth about rebellion -- something you and I both know you are in no position to foment -- simply because the government of today doesn't square with your puerile political views. True patriots don't have to support their government; in fact, to be a patriot, one may be called to act against it.

You're not that guy. You're a fair-weather American. You will support the system and the Constitution that defines it only so long as your side wins the elections, and when they don't you foam at the mouth. It's pathetic. If you want to prove me wrong you can cross the line you keep drawing in the sand with such infantile aplomb.

pjohns
09-12-2013, 09:47 AM
Bring it on. Put down your Gadsden flags and your tricorne hats and pick up your guns. See what happens.

(1) I have never advocated secession--just nullification.

(2) Even if secession actually were to occur, it is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that this would lead to a repeat of the bloodshed that occurred 150 years ago. It would, doubtless, mean that federal benefits (including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) would be cut off to those states leaving the union. But, so far as I can ascertain, it is only the left that seems to envision (and even desire) violence as a response to any such occurrence...

pjohns
09-12-2013, 09:50 AM
Update: The vote has now been taken in the Missouri state senate; and, although it garnered a large majority of votes (22 for, versus 12 against), it fell just one vote short of the requisite two-thirds supermajority.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Missouri backs off showdown over federal gun laws : Stltoday (http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/missouri-backs-off-showdown-over-federal-gun-laws/article_289f4697-da68-58c5-9b02-84fab32f6e39.html)

Note: The identical story (from the Associated Press) was contained also in The Kansas City Star:
Missouri backs off showdown over federal gun laws - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/12/4475611/missouri-backs-off-showdown-over.html)

I deeply regret that this measure failed. Still, it is a very good thing, I believe, that more and more state legislatures are now debating what was once considered unthinkable--a challenge to the "settled doctrine" that was "forever established" by the Civil War (or so we are told)...

Chris
09-12-2013, 09:50 AM
I don't wish for anything beyond you shutting your mouth about rebellion -- something you and I both know you are in no position to foment -- simply because the government of today doesn't square with your puerile political views. True patriots don't have to support their government; in fact, to be a patriot, one may be called to act against it.

You're not that guy. You're a fair-weather American. You will support the system and the Constitution that defines it only so long as your side wins the elections, and when they don't you foam at the mouth. It's pathetic. If you want to prove me wrong you can cross the line you keep drawing in the sand with such infantile aplomb.




I don't wish for anything beyond you shutting your mouth....

What an attitude to have on a forum. Perhaps if you just shouted louder and more emotionally like your fellow travelers it would down out opposing opinions.

Chris
09-12-2013, 09:51 AM
Update: The vote has now been taken in the Missouri state senate; and, although it garnered a large majority of votes (22 for, versus 12 against), it fell just one vote short of the requisite two-thirds supermajority.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Missouri backs off showdown over federal gun laws : Stltoday (http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/missouri-backs-off-showdown-over-federal-gun-laws/article_289f4697-da68-58c5-9b02-84fab32f6e39.html)

Note: The identical story (from the Associated Press) was contained also in The Kansas City Star:
Missouri backs off showdown over federal gun laws - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/12/4475611/missouri-backs-off-showdown-over.html)

I deeply regret that this measure failed. Still, it is a very good thing, I believe, that more and more state legislatures are now debating what was once considered unthinkable--a challenge to the "settled doctrine" that was "forever established" by the Civil War (or so we are told)...



Agree, the debate is good for this land of liberty. Thanks for reporting on this to us!

Agravan
09-12-2013, 10:02 AM
I don't wish for anything beyond you shutting your mouth about rebellion -- something you and I both know you are in no position to foment -- simply because the government of today doesn't square with your puerile political views. True patriots don't have to support their government; in fact, to be a patriot, one may be called to act against it.

You're not that guy. You're a fair-weather American. You will support the system and the Constitution that defines it only so long as your side wins the elections, and when they don't you foam at the mouth. It's pathetic. If you want to prove me wrong you can cross the line you keep drawing in the sand with such infantile aplomb.

"fair weather American"? And you know that from a few posts that you happen to not like? let me ask you this, have you ever put your life on the line for this country? Have you ever served? Have you ever taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States? Not the government, but the Constitution? I take that oath seriously. And when I see my country under attack from within by the disgusting people on the left, I will defend her. Yes. I advocate secession. but that is the right of every state in the union. You people have so destroyed this country that the Founding Fathers would have a hard time recognizing it.
Anger over losing an election? really? Is that the meme you're going to go with? When you people protest against a Republican administration, is that anger over losing an election. You people confuse anger over losing an election over concern as to where you progressives are taking the country. You have no idea what the term patriot means. I am not loyal to the president, the government or any party. I am loyal to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 11:28 AM
Yes. I advocate secession. but that is the right of every state in the union.
Then by default, you are not loyal at all to The Constitution or the country.

It doesn't matter, really -- one of kookiest legislatures in the 50 states just balked at open defiance to the Fed even in purely theoretical law.

No state shall ever again seek to secede. That question has been settled.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 11:37 AM
(1) I have never advocated secession--just nullification.

(2) Even if secession actually were to occur, it is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that this would lead to a repeat of the bloodshed that occurred 150 years ago. It would, doubtless, mean that federal benefits (including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) would be cut off to those states leaving the union. But, so far as I can ascertain, it is only the left that seems to envision (and even desire) violence as a response to any such occurrence...
1) I was not addressing you. However, there is nothing a state can do to independently override the mandate of the federal judiciary. As a collective, the states have only once seriously threatened to take the "back door" written into the Constitution with a convention, triggering the progressive amendments of the late 19th/early 20th century.

2) It won't -- things might be highly polarized these days but we are nowhere near having that kind of alienation from the national identity extant in any of the states.

Take Texas, for example. Sure there's a lot of pride about the fact that Texas once had independence, but nobody really wants things to go back that way. Right now, Democrats are licking their chops (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/texas_07-09.html) at the possibility of making it contested ground. But let's say Texas did secede despite that being about as likely as the moon crashing into the Earth. The U.S. military would become domestically impotent without the key strategic resources it has spread throughout the state.

You really think the Fed would let those go without issue?

Agravan
09-12-2013, 02:56 PM
Then by default, you are not loyal at all to The Constitution or the country.

It doesn't matter, really -- one of kookiest legislatures in the 50 states just balked at open defiance to the Fed even in purely theoretical law.

No state shall ever again seek to secede. That question has been settled.
Really? And how, exactly was it settled to where "No state shall ever again seek to secede"?
Are you prescient now? You know FOR A FACT that no state will ever seek this? Damn. The please tell me what tomorrows lottery numbers are.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 04:03 PM
Really? And how, exactly was it settled to where "No state shall ever again seek to secede"?
Are you prescient now? You know FOR A FACT that no state will ever seek this? Damn. The please tell me what tomorrows lottery numbers are.
Obviously, no. I consider it to be very, very, very unlikely and I have more than 150 years of history,
a lot of which has seen much more tumult than the politics of today, to support that theory.

The federal government has a trump card in any such case. If states defy a federal mandate, troops will
come into play, as they did during the Civil Rights Era. At that point, unless the defiant states are prepared
to kill American soldiers -- and if they are, their cause will lose a lot of backers -- it stops.

Agravan
09-12-2013, 04:31 PM
Obviously, no. I consider it to be very, very, very unlikely and I have more than 150 years of history,
a lot of which has seen much more tumult than the politics of today, to support that theory.

The federal government has a trump card in any such case. If states defy a federal mandate, troops will
come into play, as they did during the Civil Rights Era. At that point, unless the defiant states are prepared
to kill American soldiers -- and if they are, their cause will lose a lot of backers -- it stops.

And do these soldiers come from "Federal Land"? You put a lot of faith in your government troops just blindly obeying orders. Do you really want to put it to the test?

Mainecoons
09-12-2013, 05:01 PM
Obviously, no. I consider it to be very, very, very unlikely and I have more than 150 years of history,
a lot of which has seen much more tumult than the politics of today, to support that theory.

The federal government has a trump card in any such case. If states defy a federal mandate, troops will
come into play, as they did during the Civil Rights Era. At that point, unless the defiant states are prepared
to kill American soldiers -- and if they are, their cause will lose a lot of backers -- it stops.

That was "settled" by an after-the-fact validation of Lincoln's illegal war against the south by a manipulated Supreme Court. In point of fact, in the body of history around the formation of the U.S. after the revolution, there was NOTHING in the Constitution that forced states to remain unwilling members.

peoshi
09-12-2013, 05:13 PM
Obviously, no. I consider it to be very, very, very unlikely and I have more than 150 years of history,
a lot of which has seen much more tumult than the politics of today, to support that theory.

The federal government has a trump card in any such case. If states defy a federal mandate, troops will
come into play, as they did during the Civil Rights Era. At that point, unless the defiant states are prepared
to kill American soldiers -- and if they are, their cause will lose a lot of backers -- it stops.What makes you so sure the US military is going to back the government and kill their own people?

Chris
09-12-2013, 05:29 PM
United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment supports and defends the Constitution first, President last.

peoshi
09-12-2013, 05:31 PM
In case you haven't noticed there are quite a few military bases in these "defiant states" , do you honestly think these soldiers are going to turn on their families and friends just to save face for your hero in the oval office?

They're not all liberals,you do realize that I hope.

peoshi
09-12-2013, 05:38 PM
United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment supports and defends the Constitution first, President last.The constitution that this president ignores, but some here seem to think the term "commander in chief" is all that matters...pity the sheep.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 05:39 PM
In case you haven't noticed there are quite a few military bases in these "defiant states" , do you honestly think these soldiers are going to turn on their families and friends just to save face for your hero in the oval office?

They're not all liberals,you do realize that I hope.
You guys are losing it. None of this stuff is ever gonna happen, certainly not during Barack Obama's term.

I mean, gosh, I said purely hypothetical. Countless elements that do not exist today would have to manifest to make it otherwise.

Agravan
09-12-2013, 06:57 PM
You guys are losing it. None of this stuff is ever gonna happen, certainly not during Barack Obama's term.

I mean, gosh, I said purely hypothetical. Countless elements that do not exist today would have to manifest to make it otherwise.

and, as is typical of liberals. you do not answer direct questions.

jillian
09-12-2013, 07:02 PM
"fair weather American"? And you know that from a few posts that you happen to not like? let me ask you this, have you ever put your life on the line for this country? Have you ever served? Have you ever taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States? Not the government, but the Constitution? I take that oath seriously. And when I see my country under attack from within by the disgusting people on the left, I will defend her. Yes. I advocate secession. but that is the right of every state in the union. You people have so destroyed this country that the Founding Fathers would have a hard time recognizing it.
Anger over losing an election? really? Is that the meme you're going to go with? When you people protest against a Republican administration, is that anger over losing an election. You people confuse anger over losing an election over concern as to where you progressives are taking the country. You have no idea what the term patriot means. I am not loyal to the president, the government or any party. I am loyal to the Constitution of the United States of America.

you're loyal to the constitution but advocate secession? that's mutually inconsistent.

feel free to take it up with the supreme court

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

Chris
09-12-2013, 07:06 PM
you're loyal to the constitution but advocate secession? that's mutually inconsistent.

feel free to take it up with the supreme court

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html



Succession would be justified if the federal government violated the Constitution. I think it's way past that point.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 11:12 PM
and, as is typical of liberals. you do not answer direct questions.
What, that idiocy about "turning on their families and friends?"

You think the troops of the Civil Rights era, also largely stationed at bases in, or in close proximity to the South, had this conundrum?

I mean, the entire thing is silliness -- but I'll at least humor you.

Singularity
09-12-2013, 11:18 PM
you're loyal to the constitution but advocate secession? that's mutually inconsistent.

feel free to take it up with the supreme court

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
Secession became impossible the day the federal government gained the power to suppress it.

That was before the Civil War. The Union had too many resources and too much political will for any other outcome.

The very best the CSU could have obtained without direct foreign intervention was political concessions over their reasons for rebellion.

We may have started out as a loose union of free and independent states, but today we are and shall ever be One Nation.

jillian
09-12-2013, 11:30 PM
The last time, we were mostly an agrarian society and you were the industrialized ones. That is no longer the case. Bring it on.

tell us again what a constitutionalist you are

:cuckoo:

peoshi
09-13-2013, 01:01 AM
What, that idiocy about "turning on their families and friends?"

You think the troops of the Civil Rights era, also largely stationed at bases in, or in close proximity to the South, had this conundrum?

I mean, the entire thing is silliness -- but I'll at least humor you.The civil rights era was 50 yrs. ago,chief.Where do you think these troops come from?
They have watched the pieces of shit you are championing rule a clear act of terrorism as "workplace violence", thereby limiting the benefits of their survivors, they have watched the pieces of shit you are championing abandon their own in Libya, and blame their deaths on a youtube video on the anniversary of the largest terrorist attack in history no less, and then blow it off afterwards(what difference does it make?),they have watched them provide weapons to drug cartels which were used to kill their own employees,they have watched the pieces of shit you are championing specifically target groups who disagree with them politically.
You support this crap and then question the patriotism of those who don't,simply because they are not a drone like you?

So humor me, explain how you can support the above and still support the country instead of your hero?

peoshi
09-13-2013, 01:28 AM
you're loyal to the constitution but advocate secession? that's mutually inconsistent.

feel free to take it up with the supreme court

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.htmlAre you really stupid enough to think if it comes to that they are going to ask for the supreme courts permission?

Agravan
09-13-2013, 06:02 AM
What, that idiocy about "turning on their families and friends?"

You think the troops of the Civil Rights era, also largely stationed at bases in, or in close proximity to the South, had this conundrum?

I mean, the entire thing is silliness -- but I'll at least humor you.
If you don't understand the difference between what happened in that era (civil rights) and what would happen during a secession, then it is pointless to argue with you. You go ahead and keep your head in the clouds and let the grown ups worry about things like this because they're obviously beyond your realm of comprehension.

Agravan
09-13-2013, 06:03 AM
tell us again what a constitutionalist you are

:cuckoo:

Can't stand the fact that we are on a more or less equal, if not superior footing to you now than we were then? :dingbat:

zelmo1234
09-13-2013, 06:20 AM
Secession became impossible the day the federal government gained the power to suppress it.

That was before the Civil War. The Union had too many resources and too much political will for any other outcome.

The very best the CSU could have obtained without direct foreign intervention was political concessions over their reasons for rebellion.

We may have started out as a loose union of free and independent states, but today we are and shall ever be One Nation.

While I think that you are correct? The current situation, and if we are honest it is both parties, of Government ignoring the will of the people and the continual erosion of the rights of the people? Some in the name of Security, some in the name of the environment and some in the name of Equality, has a real element of danger to it.

While I don't see it as a secession so to speak, the US Government has made several mistakes that could lead to a very difficult situation.

#1 As mentioned they don't really care about the will of the people Syria, is just the latest example, Look at Obamacare, it has never had a majority of support? Many aspects of the Patriot act are the same. And more and more people are considering themselves Libertarians> because of their lack of faith in government!

#2 they have allowed citizens to build standing armies. Halliburton, X's (formerly Black Water) are among the largest? These companies and individuals, Including myself had access to weapons that normal people do not! And while at this time I believe they are owned and operated by loyal people, we do not know what the future holds.


#3 We have a party that is hell bent on disarming the people, and in this country that will spell trouble! And would certainly require military actions against it's own people to pull off!


When you add this together? you have a huge army scattered though out the USA, You have a military that is largely conservative, this could spell more of a military take over of government and or god forbid assignations of public officials ,j this I believe would be the tactic that the people would use, and it is just a scary as civil war

zelmo1234
09-13-2013, 06:23 AM
you're loyal to the constitution but advocate secession? that's mutually inconsistent.

feel free to take it up with the supreme court

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

Actually you can only believe in succession from the union if you do believe in the founding documents?


But not the constitution? It is the wording in the DOI that give the states not only the power, but the obligations to throw off suppressive governments!

Singularity
09-13-2013, 08:05 AM
If you don't understand the difference between what happened in that era (civil rights) and what would happen during a secession, then it is pointless to argue with you. You go ahead and keep your head in the clouds and let the grown ups worry about things like this because they're obviously beyond your realm of comprehension.
Here's two things you maybe ought to comprehend, sir:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114407/how-turn-texas-blue

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/jun/18/will-demographics-turn-red-georgia-blue-2020/

Haha, what will the call be then? Secede from ourselves? :rofl:

Singularity
09-13-2013, 08:13 AM
While I think that you are correct? The current situation, and if we are honest it is both parties, of Government ignoring the will of the people and the continual erosion of the rights of the people? Some in the name of Security, some in the name of the environment and some in the name of Equality, has a real element of danger to it.
I'll agree, but only truly in the former sense. There are no environmental or civil rights issues that have actually harmed peoples' rights.

Regardless, it should be and is possible to do something about this through the current system.


While I don't see it as a secession so to speak, the US Government has made several mistakes that could lead to a very difficult situation.

#1 As mentioned they don't really care about the will of the people Syria, is just the latest example, Look at Obamacare, it has never had a majority of support? Many aspects of the Patriot act are the same. And more and more people are considering themselves Libertarians> because of their lack of faith in government!

#2 they have allowed citizens to build standing armies. Halliburton, X's (formerly Black Water) are among the largest? These companies and individuals, Including myself had access to weapons that normal people do not! And while at this time I believe they are owned and operated by loyal people, we do not know what the future holds.

#3 We have a party that is hell bent on disarming the people, and in this country that will spell trouble! And would certainly require military actions against it's own people to pull off!
Syria is indeed a mess we ought to avoid.

PMCs have been a concern, but their reputation, I think, was mostly ruined by their conduct in the Iraq War. I'm not afraid of them.

No effort has been made to disarm law-abiding citizens at the federal level. Except maybe through the assault weapons ban resurrection-effort, but that was D.O.A.

We retain an incredibly strong firearms lobby at the federal level by international standards.

jillian
09-13-2013, 08:16 AM
IOW, it's not in the Constitution but what someone interprets it so.

That article has to do with treaties. It's a limited power.

we live in a common law nation. this has been explained to you before. caselaw interpreting the constitution is part of our law.

here's yet another link, since you keep ignoring the force and enforceability of caselaw since you don't like it:

Countries following a common law system are typically those that were former British colonies or protectorates, including the United States.
Features of a common law system include:

There is not always a written constitution or codified laws;

Judicial decisions are binding – decisions of the highest court can generally only be overturned by that same court or through legislation;

Extensive freedom of contract - few provisions are implied into the contract by law (although provisions seeking to protect private consumers may be implied);

Generally, everything is permitted that is not expressly prohibited by law.

http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/legislation-regulation/framework-assessment/legal-systems/common-vs-civil-law

what does due process mean absent court interpretation?

we'll wait.

Chris
09-13-2013, 08:23 AM
we live in a common law nation. this has been explained to you before. caselaw interpreting the constitution is part of our law.

here's yet another link, since you keep ignoring the force and enforceability of caselaw since you don't like it:

Countries following a common law system are typically those that were former British colonies or protectorates, including the United States.
Features of a common law system include:

There is not always a written constitution or codified laws;

Judicial decisions are binding – decisions of the highest court can generally only be overturned by that same court or through legislation;

Extensive freedom of contract - few provisions are implied into the contract by law (although provisions seeking to protect private consumers may be implied);

Generally, everything is permitted that is not expressly prohibited by law.

http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/legislation-regulation/framework-assessment/legal-systems/common-vs-civil-law

what does due process mean absent court interpretation?

we'll wait.




this has been explained to you before

By who? What, do you think you've ever explained anything? Sorry, but you don't, you give your opinion, then, on law, you claim legal positivism justifies it. It doesn't.

Already knew what common law is. Besides, we're also civil law.

Chris
09-13-2013, 08:26 AM
Here's two things you maybe ought to comprehend, sir:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114407/how-turn-texas-blue

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/jun/18/will-demographics-turn-red-georgia-blue-2020/

Haha, what will the call be then? Secede from ourselves? :rofl:


Secede from ourselves?

No, secede from an unconstitutional federal government.

Or were you trying to argue Filmer's anarchist absurdity?

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 08:30 AM
Are you really stupid enough to think if it comes to that they are going to ask for the supreme courts permission?

Are you stupid enough to think it will ever happen?

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 08:31 AM
By who? What, do you think you've ever explained anything? Sorry, but you don't, you give your opinion, then, on law, you claim legal positivism justifies it. It doesn't.

Already knew what common law is.

What is legal positivism...

jillian
09-13-2013, 08:34 AM
What is legal positivism...

actual laws instead of law created in the air.

(in other words, anything he disagrees with).

Chris
09-13-2013, 08:36 AM
What is legal positivism...

In short, simple terms, the assumption that the law justifies itself, that because something is law it is just and moral. It's a naturalistic fallacy, to assume what is ought to be so.

Chris
09-13-2013, 08:37 AM
actual laws instead of law created in the air.

(in other words, anything he disagrees with).



Why do you seem to have this compulsive need to make things up and put them in other people's mouths. I spit your straw man out.

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 08:38 AM
In short, simple terms, the assumption that the law justifies itself, that because something is law it is just and moral. It's a naturalistic fallacy, to assume what is ought to be so.

Oh, so we just get rid of laws?

You know, after that thread about natural laws etc, I guess I see how you are made up.

Basically any laws you like you believe in, those you don't, you don't. This is why I wanted you guys to be clear and concise about what natural laws were,
Because at the end of the day you sound like the Medicine Man version of a lawyer...

Chris
09-13-2013, 08:47 AM
Oh, so we just get rid of laws?

You know, after that thread about natural laws etc, I guess I see how you are made up.

Basically any laws you like you believe in, those you don't, you don't. This is why I wanted you guys to be clear and concise about what natural laws were,
Because at the end of the day you sound like the Medicine Man version of a lawyer...




Oh, so we just get rid of laws?

Didn't say that.


You know, after that thread about natural laws etc, I guess I see how you are made up.

That doesn't even make sense.


Basically any laws you like you believe in, those you don't, you don't.

Didn't say that.



So your conclusions are based on straw men.


Care to address what I did say?

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 08:51 AM
Didn't say that.



That doesn't even make sense.



Didn't say that.



So your conclusions are based on straw men.


Care to address what I did say?

How about you explain yourself more clearly and give examples of what you mean...

Chris
09-13-2013, 08:51 AM
How about you explain yourself more clearly and give examples of what you mean...



Ask me a question about what I said, and, as I have shown, I will answer.

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 08:57 AM
How about you explain yourself more clearly and give examples of what you mean.?

There, I even put a question mark...

Chris
09-13-2013, 09:13 AM
How about you explain yourself more clearly and give examples of what you mean.?

There, I even put a question mark...



What question do you have about what I said so far? You asked me a specific question and I gave you an answer. What don't you understand about my plain and simple words?

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 09:18 AM
What question do you have about what I said so far? You asked me a specific question and I gave you an answer. What don't you understand about my plain and simple words?

If you want to dance just ask somebody. I'm not that kinda guy..

You made a statement. I responded. You said in your answers "I didn't say that" etc. Fine. Then explain further. Give examples of what you mean.

You know Chris, this is why I put you on ignore on occasion, and that time is coming soon again.

You are either dumb or playing dumb. It is quite obvious to anybody who reads our conversation what I am asking you to do. Are you that egotistical, or need your ego to be so satiated that you need things spelt out to you? Either answer the question or don't. If you don't then don't interact with me. My initial question was in good faith, if you want to be a dick/fuckwit/prick, then don't engage in the first place. We all know you crave attention but it all gets a bit boorish after a while...

Chris
09-13-2013, 09:30 AM
If you want to dance just ask somebody. I'm not that kinda guy..

You made a statement. I responded. You said in your answers "I didn't say that" etc. Fine. Then explain further. Give examples of what you mean.

You know Chris, this is why I put you on ignore on occasion, and that time is coming soon again.

You are either dumb or playing dumb. It is quite obvious to anybody who reads our conversation what I am asking you to do. Are you that egotistical, or need your ego to be so satiated that you need things spelt out to you? Either answer the question or don't. If you don't then don't interact with me. My initial question was in good faith, if you want to be a dick/fuckwit/prick, then don't engage in the first place. We all know you crave attention but it all gets a bit boorish after a while...

Clearly I'm not the one dancing here, happy.

You asked a question about legal positivism and I gave an answer. You responded not to my answer but your own imagination. I'm waiting for you to ask me about what I actually posted. What specifically did you now understand and need explanation for? Until you do that I have no idea what you're asking for.

Chris
09-13-2013, 12:57 PM
Here's two things you maybe ought to comprehend, sir:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114407/how-turn-texas-blue

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/jun/18/will-demographics-turn-red-georgia-blue-2020/

Haha, what will the call be then? Secede from ourselves? :rofl:



Back to topic....

That is precisely what some propose, not only seceding from the federal government but from their state government as well.

Why a Secessionist Movement Is Brewing in California (http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/13/why-a-secessionist-movement-is-brewing-i)


Supporters of the new state of Jefferson raise serious grievances against the state and federal governments.

Most Californians treat with bemusement the news that the board of supervisors in far-north Siskiyou County voted 4-1 early this month to seek secession from California and revive efforts to create a new state of Jefferson.

But while U.S. flags are unlikely to soon add another star, this rural separatist movement has long been brewing and is based on serious grievances that state and federal officials would be wise to ponder.

Two years ago, I attended the Defend Rural America event at the Siskiyou County fairgrounds in Yreka, where some attendees proudly flew the Jefferson flag. The proposed state’s boundaries have varied, but the movement was started in 1941 to combine counties in southern Oregon with some in northern California. The flag features two “Xs” — to signify being double-crossed by Sacramento and Salem.

The earliest Jefferson movement dissipated after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It’s hard to call for a national break-up during wartime. But the movement has been a backdrop to debates in those counties ever since.....

nic34
09-13-2013, 01:32 PM
Back to topic....

That is precisely what some propose, not only seceding from the federal government but from their state government as well.

Why a Secessionist Movement Is Brewing in California (http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/13/why-a-secessionist-movement-is-brewing-i)

I say the more states the merrier... it's not like they want to be an independent nation or anything... soon they'll become just like the rest!

Chris
09-13-2013, 01:35 PM
I say the more states the merrier... it's not like they want to be an independent nation or anything... soon they'll become just like the rest!

Thank you for your support.

Mr Happy
09-13-2013, 05:33 PM
Clearly I'm not the one dancing here, happy.

You asked a question about legal positivism and I gave an answer. You responded not to my answer but your own imagination. I'm waiting for you to ask me about what I actually posted. What specifically did you now understand and need explanation for? Until you do that I have no idea what you're asking for.

Ok, you're as dumb as a post. I obviously have to spell it out for you.

You said this: "In short, simple terms, the assumption that the law justifies itself, that because something is law it is just and moral. It's a naturalistic fallacy, to assume what is ought to be so."

I then gave my break down on what you said. You said I was wrong. Fine. Please give examples of what you mean above. If you dance one more time, I'm done with you again. Haven't got the time or the wherewithall....

Peter1469
09-13-2013, 06:39 PM
Ok, you're as dumb as a post. I obviously have to spell it out for you.

You said this: "In short, simple terms, the assumption that the law justifies itself, that because something is law it is just and moral. It's a naturalistic fallacy, to assume what is ought to be so."



I then gave my break down on what you said. You said I was wrong. Fine. Please give examples of what you mean above. If you dance one more time, I'm done with you again. Haven't got the time or the wherewithall....

Warning: no personal attacks.

Mr Happy
09-14-2013, 02:06 AM
I take it he was just trolling. Not that I didn't know that. I thought he was the one who was always cracking on about posting in good faith...

Thank you...

peoshi
09-14-2013, 12:14 PM
Are you stupid enough to think it will ever happen?No I don't think it will happen in my lifetime but I'm not naive enough to think it can't.I realize you know nothing about the world outside of New Zealand...you prove that every time you post but have you ever heard of Egypt,Syria,etc.?Feel free to answer for her...do you think if it comes to that the defiant states are going to ask for the courts permission?

peoshi
09-14-2013, 02:25 PM
Are you stupid enough to think it will ever happen?BTW...I said "if it comes to that" which means it already has happened,genius.
Where did I say I thought it was going to happen?
Let me ask you something happy, why are you here?
You do not live in the US, the politics here do not affect you and quite frankly are none of your business so why are you here other than to troll?
I don't agree with a lot of people here but at least they have a reason for their opinions because they live here and are affected by the politics here.
You don't.
I'm not questioning your right to be here, I'm asking why you are?

Mainecoons
09-14-2013, 03:23 PM
What the heck do they have to do in New Zealand besides herd sheep and fleece tourists?

:grin:

peoshi
09-14-2013, 06:22 PM
What the heck do they have to do in New Zealand besides herd sheep and fleece tourists?

:grin:He is a sheep, being herded by the government of a country he doesn't even live in.

I don't agree with the governments of various countries, but I do not troll...err post on their political message boards, because it does not affect me and it is none of my business. I don't live there.

Dr. Who
09-14-2013, 09:03 PM
People can have an interest in world politics. US politics affects the world in one way or another- it is imbedded in the media and foreign policy, why question interest? The point of the forum is debate. Why restrict point of view?

peoshi
09-14-2013, 09:40 PM
People can have an interest in world politics. US politics affects the world in one way or another- it is imbedded in the media and foreign policy, why question interest? The point of the forum is debate. Why restrict point of view?Then that should be posted in world affairs or rants,and no one is restricting anything so get your panties out of the wad.

Can you tell me how the political landscape in the US has any effect whatsoever on New Zealand?

I asked a simple question, and I don't recall asking you anything, so if you don't want to "restrict" their point of view how about letting them speak for themselves?

Dr. Who
09-14-2013, 09:52 PM
Then that should be posted in world affairs or rants,and no one is restricting anything so get your panties out of the wad.

Can you tell me how the political landscape in the US has any effect whatsoever on New Zealand?

I asked a simple question, and I don't recall asking you anything, so if you don't want to "restrict" their point of view how about letting them speak for themselves?

I'm afraid Happy is currently banned from this thread, so someone should speak on his behalf.

peoshi
09-14-2013, 09:56 PM
I'm afraid Happy is currently banned from this thread, so someone should speak on his behalf.I did not know that...I apologize.

Dr. Who
09-14-2013, 10:00 PM
I did not know that...I apologize.No problem.