A Right To Secede?

Jack Hays said:

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

― George Orwell :2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:

Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Jack.

I read a while back that Orwell may have been an optimist! Now that's scary!

Jack Hays said:

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

― George Orwell :2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:

Click to expand...

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
― George Orwell

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
― George Orwell

"Hey, you! Get your damn hands off her!" <Lady Liberty>
― George McFly

Trip said:

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
― George Orwell

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
― George Orwell

"Hey, you! Get your damn hands off her!" <Lady Liberty>
― George McFly

Click to expand...

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This would be the argument for secession.

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." This would be telling would-be secessionists that their ideas are treasonous.:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:

Trip said:

Answer this ... if you are able.. and your ideology does not inhibit you:

Click to expand...

First things first: What ideology are you referring to?

Jack Hays said:

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This would be the argument for secession.

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." This would be telling would-be secessionists that their ideas are treasonous.:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:

Click to expand...

It is my sincere hope that you are up front and center to tell those secessionists demanding their rights that they are treasonous.

I want to see that flag you abuse firmly anchored in something meaningful for the first time.


Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Trip said:

It is my sincere hope that you are up front and center to tell those secessionists demanding their rights that they are treasonous.

I want to see that flag you abuse firmly anchored in something meaningful for the first time.

Click to expand...

I've had this conversation in person. Never had a problem. Treason is treason. If you advocate it, own it. Otherwise stand up for your country.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:

haymarket said:

First things first: What ideology are you referring to?

Click to expand...

That would be second things first, since it was offered in response to your first thing, said first.

But that would be the ideology that you repeatedly display which involves abject subservience to statist authority under whatever terms ... which you naively now believe are your own terms.


Now, can you answer those questions, or will you balk, as I expect you to do?

Jack Hays said:

I've had this conversation in person. Never had a problem. Treason is treason. If you advocate it, own it. Otherwise stand up for your country.

Click to expand...

Treason is treason, but a small mind should not be out wandering unattended, much less trying to wield words it cannot grasp, as you're doing.

Treason as defined in Article Three, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".

You should note that treason is not resistance against the government, but rather the "United States", and it is not levying war against "it", singular, but rather "them" and "their", plural.

Once again we are reminded that the States themselves are sovereign, and that the federal government is in service to the states, and by the terms of the Constitution. When that government is no longer adhering to the Constitution, then it, itself is treasonous and waging war against the states, and the people.


At this time there are many guilty of Treason, intending to undermine and collapse this country, and the day will come where their actions result in many windchimes clicking their heels from the boughs of the Liberty Tree.

Trip said:

Treason is treason, but a small mind should not be out wandering unattended, much less trying to wield words it cannot grasp, as you're doing.

Treason as defined in Article Three, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".

You should note that treason is not resistance against the government, but rather the "United States", and it is not levying war against "it", singular, but rather "them" and "their", plural.

Once again we are reminded that the States themselves are sovereign, and that the federal government is in service to the states, and by the terms of the Constitution. When that government is no longer adhering to the Constitution, then it, itself is treasonous and waging war against the states, and the people.


At this time there are many guilty of Treason, intending to undermine and collapse this country, and the day will come where their actions result in many windchimes clicking their heels from the boughs of the Liberty Tree.

Click to expand...

I doubt we will change one another's mind. Take care.

Trip said:

That would be second things first, since it was offered in response to your first thing, said first.

Click to expand...

NO. It is first things first. You lead with it.

But that would be the ideology that you repeatedly display which involves abject subservience to statist authority under whatever terms ... which you naively now believe are your own terms.



I have no idea what you are talking about with this nonsense about statist authority and being subservient to it. And you have utterly failed to document such a charge.

So your silly "ideology' crack fails before you even get a chance to ask your question.

But I know if I stop there you will simply whine about it thinking your question was oh so clever and I simply and powerless to answer it. Nonsense.

What the right wing is doing is working to negate the shift in both demographics in this nation which work against them and work against the democratization of our society which has been in full flower for the last century. They see themselves losing to both so they do all in their power to defeat them. Just look at Michigan where the Republicans with a serious right wing majority in the Legislature and a right wing Governor have over ruled the people by passing Emergency Manager laws which take over the local government of the people. It puts to shame the observation by another Republican - Abe Lincoln - that America was a nation where we had government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...nager-law-michigan-rick-snyder_n_2322722.html

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed a revised version of a controversial emergency manager law Thursday that was rejected by voters during the November election.

“These new laws recognize the vital importance of financially stable, economically vibrant communities to Michigan’s future,” Snyder said in a statement. “They also respect the needs of citizens and taxpayers by delivering greater oversight and efficiency. Our reinvention of government is delivering meaningful reforms that will keep Michigan on the path to prosperity.”

Both houses of the state legislature approved the bill during the lame-duck session. The new law takes effect 90 days after the end of this year's legislative session, according to Bloomberg.com.

The revised law is similar to Public Act 4, which was struck down in a state referendum last month. One major difference is that the new law gives communities and school districts more options -- allowing them to choose to take on an emergency manager, go into bankruptcy, enter mediation or enter into a special partnership known as a consent agreement with the State of Michigan. But, thanks to a mechanism for the state of Michigan to finance emergency manager salaries created by inserting a $770,000 appropriation to the legislation, this newly revised law will not be subject to voter referendum.

Click to expand...

The second part - Just look at what they are doing in states around the land proposing obstructions which would limit the vote and give them victory ion elections they are finding it increasingly difficult to win when they have to play by the rules.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ania_gop_leader_voter_id_will_help_romney.php

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) said that the voter ID law passed by the legislature would help deliver the state for Mitt Romney in November.

“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said at this weekend’s Republican State Committee meeting , according to PoliticsPA.com.

A spokesman for Turzai confirmed the accuracy of the quote for TPM

Click to expand...

That is what the right wing is doing. Screwing the people because they cannot achieve their goals any other way.

Congress has funded and armed Israel for over six years and Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 making Israel an enemy of America and Americans; would any "American" support either Congress or Israel?

Secession, from what?

Jack Hays said:

You advocate secession. That could never be accomplished except by violence. Fortunately, it can also (and almost certainly would) be stopped by violence.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:

Click to expand...

no i dont advocate secession (meaning doing), i advocate its possible through the process of peace,because the founding fathers say it is possible.

ernst barkmann said:

no i dont advocate secession (meaning doing), i advocate its possible through the process of peace,because the founding fathers say it is possible.

Click to expand...

No, they did not, according to the Supreme Court (1869) and the experience of history (1861-65). In sum, secession will not be permitted regardless of your belief.

Jack Hays said:

No, they did not, according to the Supreme Court (1869) and the experience of history (1861-65). In sum, secession will not be permitted regardless of your belief.

Click to expand...

when the founders tell you that a state can secede, .....what are you to think, since they created the Constitution.

ernst barkmann said:

when the founders tell you that a state can secede, .....what are you to think, since they created the Constitution.

Click to expand...

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

Jack Hays said:

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

Click to expand...

so we have a nation which is ruled by a court?

so if the court says their is no right to free speech, are they right?

the founders created the constitution, they stated you have free speech, is it within the power of the court to rule on that?

no!...because they would be challenging the constitutionality of the constitution.

the founders state every state is sovereign, and they are.......that is beyond question.....and free and being in the union is voluntary.....they use the word voluntary.

ernst barkmann said:

so we have a nation which is ruled by a court?

so if the court says their is no right to free speech, are they right?

the founders created the constitution, they stated you have free speech, is it within the power of the court to rule on that?

no!...because they would be challenging the constitutionality of the constitution.

the founders state every state is sovereign, and they are.......that is beyond question.....and free and being in the union is voluntary.....they use the word voluntary.

Click to expand...

The SCOTUS is fully empowered to decide what is encompassed by the right to free speech. I'm sure you recall the bit about not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater and all that. More recently, recall Citizens United. That is partly a free speech case. The Constitution is supreme over the states, according to both the SCOTUS and the Union Army.

Jack Hays said:

The SCOTUS is fully empowered to decide what is encompassed by the right to free speech. I'm sure you recall the bit about not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater and all that. More recently, recall Citizens United. That is partly a free speech case. The Constitution is supreme over the states, according to both the SCOTUS and the Union Army.

Click to expand...

if you are in a theater, and you yell" fire".....and no one moves, and nothing happens......what law have you broken?

you get in trouble for yelling "fire", because you cause a panic, and people could be hurt ,be killed, lost of revenue by the movie theater, and lost of product by the patron.....this is why you can go to jail.

the COURT CANNOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTION, it is clear the right to free speech, what you are saying is our nation is ruled by a court and not by a constitution, so if they choose to say their are no rights at all, you support it, and that's wrong.

ernst barkmann said:

if you are in a theater, and you yell" fire".....and no one moves, and nothing happens......what law have you broken?

you get in trouble for yelling "fire", because you cause a panic, and people could be hurt ,be killed, lost of revenue by the movie theater, and lost of product by the patron.....this is why you can go to jail.

the COURT CANNOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTION, it is clear the right to free speech, what you are saying is our nation is ruled by a court and not by a constitution, so if they choose to say their are no rights at all, you support it, and that's wrong.

Click to expand...

You go too far when you claim to know what I would support in a wildly hypothetical case. I support the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS and defended by the Union Army.

ernst barkmann said:

if you are in a theater, and you yell" fire".....and no one moves, and nothing happens......what law have you broken?

you get in trouble for yelling "fire", because you cause a panic, and people could be hurt ,be killed, lost of revenue by the movie theater, and lost of product by the patron.....this is why you can go to jail.

the COURT CANNOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTION, it is clear the right to free speech, what you are saying is our nation is ruled by a court and not by a constitution, so if they choose to say their are no rights at all, you support it, and that's wrong.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that when Constitutional law is broken the only option is State secession? Whats the point in even having a Constitution then if no one is going to go by it?

The entire argument of State secession is obviously not even a Constitutional debate really, not when the Constitution doesnt even provide a mechanism for its existence. Assuming that State secession is left to the States just because the US Constitution never mentions it really begs the question. Its not even logical to assume that there is a right to defy the US Constitution. And make no mistake Sates secession is defying the US Constitution since the purpose of the COnstitution is that everyone including the States promise to respect and uphold the Constitution.

haymarket said:

NO. It is first things first. You lead with it.

Click to expand...

No, you LED with "right wing extremist", and their "extremist agenda against the people of this nation" and made further vague reference to "their end purpose" and "what they intend to do to the American people."

That was FIRST, and first things first, yet you still have not even begun to explain what is "extremist" and what ominous end purpose they intend against the American people.

But what you have done is show your statist authority and Marxist collectivist ideology.

haymarket said:

I have no idea what you are talking about with this nonsense about statist authority and being subservient to it. And you have utterly failed to document such a charge.

So your silly "ideology' crack fails before you even get a chance to ask your question.

Click to expand...

What I said didn't "fail". You demonstrated exactly what I was expecting, and yet in all your ranting you didn't have any real substance, no "extremists" you could point to, and no rationale as to why they are extreme, nor what extreme plan they intend.

haymarket said:

What the right wing is doing is working to negate the shift in both demographics in this nation which work against them and work against the democratization of our society which has been in full flower for the last century. They see themselves losing to both so they do all in their power to defeat them. Just look at Michigan where the Republicans with a serious right wing majority in the Legislature and a right wing Governor have over ruled the people by passing Emergency Manager laws which take over the local government of the people. It puts to shame the observation by another Republican - Abe Lincoln - that America was a nation where we had government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

New Emergency Manager Law Signed By Michigan Governor Rick Snyder

Click to expand...

This might even be amusing, if not for the fact that it is so twisted, and blind as to what is going on in this country.

If you pause and realize the substance of that story above, is the fact that these communities do not have the money to pay for their profligate spending. In response to their dire economic straits, the Governor and legislature have had to institute 'intervention", like parents finding a counseling for an addict, in order to work with those communities and have them come to terms with what they're doing economically. The alternative is to allow them to go bankrupt.

It's rather obvious that your answer is for the government to throw more money at them, but it the fact of what is going on throughout European Union with the "austerity" plans seems to escape you. The EU has even taken money directly from the bank accounts of persons on Cyprus. This is what happens when an economic decline is further worsened by increased taxation, increased legislation and increased government intrusion - it further constricts the economy and decreases revenues, while the Socialist programs, handouts, and government expenditures of all types continue to grow..

This story, above, isn't some right wing agenda; it is reality hitting home with some reasonable controls rather than going over the cliff and having economic collapse and bankruptcy.

What you further need to recognize is our governance, is not subject to any "shift in demographics". We have a Protection that is deliberately structured to prevent government from engaging in agendas, from picking winners and losers, from redistribution of wealth, and the tyrannous insertion of government in every aspect of our lives. That Protection is known as the U.S. Constitution and there's nothing "radical" or "extremist" about it. However the extremism is coming from those who have taken our country to the brink of economic collapse, bloodshed, and warfare in the streets, and the blood will be on the Democratic party's hands, and those who support them.

And, no, what is going on is nothing like what "Abe Lincoln" would support. Lincoln's government "of the people, by the people and for the people" was not Socialism and Marxist forced equalization, but rather each individual having equal freedoms and rights to pursue their own interests.

haymarket said:

The second part - Just look at what they are doing in states around the land proposing obstructions which would limit the vote and give them victory ion elections they are finding it increasingly difficult to win when they have to play by the rules.

Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State | TPMMuckraker



That is what the right wing is doing. Screwing the people because they cannot achieve their goals any other way.

Click to expand...

The "rules" we have to play by are the Constitution. "The vote" does not determine the rules in this country; we do not operate by a democratic tyranny of the majority. And if you hold "the vote" as sacred" as you seem to imply, then the sanctity of the vote being to one person, and only those entitled to vote, should be something you applaud. However we both know that the Democratic party and the Marxist agenda really don't support legitimacy, do not recognize the Constitution, and intend to accomplish their agenda by whatever means necessary - even America's collapse.

The "right wing" is not screwing anyone, but rather attempting to unscrew this country before the Democrats collapse everything, and then impose a globalist government under martial law, without any real representation that you supposed cherish so much.

FreedomFromAll said:

Are you trying to say that when Constitutional law is broken the only option is State secession? Whats the point in even having a Constitution then if no one is going to go by it?

The entire argument of State secession is obviously not even a Constitutional debate really, not when the Constitution doesnt even provide a mechanism for its existence. Assuming that State secession is left to the States just because the US Constitution never mentions it really begs the question. Its not even logical to assume that there is a right to defy the US Constitution. And make no mistake Sates secession is defying the US Constitution since the purpose of the COnstitution is that everyone including the States promise to respect and uphold the Constitution.

Click to expand...

no I am not making the argument, that a state should secede, only on that reason, it would just be another avenue if the federal government does not follow constitutional law.

there is voting to make change if that does not work then...

constitutional convention..

secession...

revolution / civil war.

why do the founders say secession is legal, being in the union is voluntary?

does the court know more than those who created the constitution, and explained it to the people in the federalist papers.

Trip said:

No, you LED with "right wing extremist", and their "extremist agenda against the people of this nation" and made further vague reference to "their end purpose" and "what they intend to do to the American people."

That was FIRST, and first things first, yet you still have not even begun to explain what is "extremist" and what ominous end purpose they intend against the American people.

But what you have done is show your statist authority and Marxist collectivist ideology.

Click to expand...

I can lead with any words I want to lead with. You lead with the crack about my ideology and I pointed that out to you. So if you wanted me to respond to some questions based on that allegations of ideology, you should have first documented what that ideology was and support for it from me.

You did not do that.

You have not yet done that.

You have failed to do that.

You thrown out some nonsense about statist and Marxist and its all silly nonsense without any supportive evidence offered of any kind.

Unless you are an anarchist who favors the abolishment of the state and all power denied to government, you and I are both supporters of the state. We perhaps may differ on the details of some things, but we both support state government as necessary.

You find yourself in the self created category of the "holier than thou" pretending that you are different than me or others when we are all in the same category and are just arguing about the details. It reminds me of someone with a ten year excellent service badge award working in a brothel who professes to be a virgin. Its a sad joke that you are attempting to perpetrate and it will not be tolerated.

What I said didn't "fail". You demonstrated exactly what I was expecting, and yet in all your ranting you didn't have any real substance, no "extremists" you could point to, and no rationale as to why they are extreme, nor what extreme plan they intend.

Click to expand...

Why are you lying about my post #2160 and the content of it which clearly answered your question? . I told you exactly what they were doing and what their intentions were. First to subvert the right to vote of the people. Second, to deny the people their own government of the people, by the people and for the people.

That was clear and unmistakable. For you to play ostrich and hide your head in the sand pretending that I did not tell you this is ridiculous as well as patently false and a lie.

The rest of your post is a sad attempt to justify the Emergency Manager law and the denial of the right of the people to have their own local government as is clearly laid out in the Michigan Constitution. It is a spitting in the face of Lincolns government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a pathetic reminder of the warning of President Ronald Reagan when he said the most dangerous words in our language were

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

Click to expand...

But now the wisdom give to us by two Presidents - both Republicans - has been smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed by right wingers who have taken over a state legislature and have imposed a big government solution upon the people while denying them the right to have their own government.

And what you do is attempt to justify and rationalize it.

The "right wing" is not screwing anyone, but rather attempting to unscrew this country before the Democrats collapse everything, and then impose a globalist government under martial law, without any real representation that you supposed cherish so much.

Click to expand...

The denial of the right of local government may not mean much to you- but it means a whole lot to the people of Michigan who rejected this power grab at the ballot box in November of 2012.

The denial of the right to vote (since you seem hostile to it as a true right in other posts you made) due to machiavellian machinations and manipulations may not seem much to you because it seems you would welcome getting rid of it even more if it suited your own extremist agenda. But it means something to the people here in Michigan.

And that right wing extremist agenda will be exposed and it will stopped.

The nonsense you closed with about some martial law giving us a globalist government seems the ravings of paranoia fueled by extremist indoctrination. It is so far out there that it creates a new basement underneath the bottom of the barrel. And you have dug that new basement yourself.

Trip said:

However we both know that the Democratic party and the Marxist agenda really don't support legitimacy, do not recognize the Constitution, and intend to accomplish their agenda by whatever means necessary - even America's collapse.

Click to expand...

You keep throwing around the term MARXIST like cheap coins you found on the street. Would that be Groucho or Chico? :roll:

Trip said:

The "rules" we have to play by are the Constitution. "The vote" does not determine the rules in this country; we do not operate by a democratic tyranny of the majority. And if you hold "the vote" as sacred" as you seem to imply, then the sanctity of the vote being to one person, and only those entitled to vote, should be something you applaud. However we both know that the Democratic party and the Marxist agenda really don't support legitimacy, do not recognize the Constitution, and intend to accomplish their agenda by whatever means necessary - even America's collapse.

The "right wing" is not screwing anyone, but rather attempting to unscrew this country before the Democrats collapse everything, and then impose a globalist government under martial law, without any real representation that you supposed cherish so much.

Click to expand...

"The vote" does not determine the rules in this country" is correct, citizen's "constitutional" federal vote only elects Representatives and absolutely nothing else.

Voting to elect Representative every two years is the only "constitutional force" the citizenry has available to use against federal Officials, Representatives particularly. The federal vote has the force to unseat, force from office, the Incumbent Representative.

It ain't democrats alone or republicans alone or together that control the U.S. government. It is the enemy of mankind that control Congress, not by electing Congress, but by the Mob's MO of bribery, extortion, blow up Congress people's business, or home, or family. The enemy of mankind has threatened to blow up the world, it is reported.