Right of secession

Billwald: //We can't even know our laws because we are ruled by secret presidental
orders. The one thing the right wing wackos have correct is that we have
been under marshall law* since WW2.//

By contrast the with the right wing wackos, the left wing
wackos think we have been under marshal** law since WW2.

By contrast with both the right wing wackos and the left
fing wackos, the radical centrist wackos know for sure:
we have been under martial*** law since WW2.

*apparently this is some kind of Justice of the SCOUS, Marshall Thurgood, joke
** a 'marshal' is a representative of the court (as opposed
to the administrative branch)
*** 'martial' refers to the military. This is a spelling lesson

BTW, the U.S.Federal Government is one of two agencies on
the earth that has the power to destroy all life on earth.
Don't go ticking them off
The other organizcation that can destroy all live on the earth
is the Russian Federation Government - don't tick them off either.
There are other organizatins that can only kill themselves off:
England, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, and Red China.

The forth richest entity in the World, the State of California,
(behind the USofA, Russia, and Red China) is, well it is, if you
pick a good definition of 'is'.

Me4Him: //But a "FREE PEOPLE" can "Change/withdraw" from any government
"THEY ESTABLISH/CONTROL". //

Tee hee. I know i can, but i have to ask my mortgage company if
it is alright first, not to mention my credit card company.

 

Just call "Allen Greenspan", the "FEDERAL RESERVE" already "OWN THIS COUNTRY".

"Subtil deception" is "SATAN'S" favorite tactic, and 99.99999999999% of the country is "Ignorant" of the role of the "Federal Reserve".

"Of all the preplexities that arise in America, the ignorance of "Currency, Coins" and their exchange will be the greatest danger."

James Madison, (paraphrased)

 

Repeal the 16th Ammendment!

 

You sound like my ex wife. When our child does something great, it's "look at our daughter". When she does something she doesn't like, it's "look what your daughter did". Sorry, but SCOTUS is your SCOTUS as much as it is mine, and no less. You can't pick and choose which rulings you choose to live under, and which you can't. Yes, you can dislike them, and denounce them, but you live under the Constitution as a whole. If you want the right to secede, and since SCOTUS has already on numerous ocaisions determined that there is no such right in the Constitution, you're welcome to amend the Constitution to spell out secession procedures. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you are absolutely wrong! The law that we live under today is NOT the Constitution as a document. It is something different that was established by the radical interpretations of rogue Supreme Courts and the resulting judical applications. The current LAW is a series of judical traditions, interpretations, and precedents rather than the document. The Constitution does not need admending but it needs the proper interpretation and application in accord with the orginal purposes and intents.

 

Then you're welcome to hire some lawyers to argue that before SCOTUS to reverse such past decisions you find objectionable.

 

We care governed by case law. SCOTUS has ruled that everything is interstate commerce.

This country is too big. I suggest a division into at least 4 sovereign nations.

 

Texas

Alaska

Hawaiia

District of Columbia

Wich one do you want to be in?

 

I'm fine. And ya???

 

My "oldtimers" is kicking in, but I think the amendment passed in 1913 wasn't ratified by 3/4 of the states as required by the Constitution however was "Certified" anyway.

It lacked TWO states.

FDR is the one who really got the ball rolling for the FRS, (federal reserve system) confiscating all "gold" coins and issuing the stuff we call "money", but really is nothing more than "bank notes" we owe the "BANKS", otherwise known as the "NATIONAL DEBT".

The more we work, earn, spend, the more we owe them, and NEVER" build any "EQUITY" in our country or "GOLD RESERVES".

They decide if we're to have a "Feast/famine" by adjusting the "prime rate", neither us or our government have "ANY CONTROL" over our future.

"Give me power over the economy, and I care not who makes the laws".

16th century author.

 

Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days). Thirty-six states were required to ratify the Amemdment. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment (thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State, while Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later).

Some have claimed that Georgia did not ratify the Amendment, but this is false. Some claim that Ohio wasn't a state until 1953, making their ratification invalid, despite the fact that Ohio became a state 150 years prior to 1953.

There are some other erroneous claims, but they're all erroneous nonetheless.

 

Then you're welcome to hire some lawyers to argue that before SCOTUS to reverse such past decisions you find objectionable. </font>[/QUOTE]So, you really don't understand. If the Supreme Court has the authority to rule in favor of secession, then they have the authority to rule against it. To do as you suggest is to admit that the final authority lies with the Supreme Court. I admit to no such authority invested in the Supreme Court. This is a hard concept for Yankees to understand. As a State Rightist, I propose that SC General Assembly pass an ordinance of secession and secede!

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession.htm

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_ordinance.htm

Here we go again!
Hurrah for Dixie!

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_Flag.htm

 

SCOTUS is charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. In every case brought before it, or any otuer court case, 50% of the persons will be unhappy with the judicial decision.

The power of SCOTUS to interpret is theirs regardless of whether you agree with their interpretation or not. Their interpretation applies to all under the Constitution, whether we like it or not.

I'm amused at how you use Yankee as a derogatory term.

Neither ou nor states have that right according to the Constitution. That has been verified in Court numerous times. Like it or not, that's the facts.

You tried. You lost. The court verified it. Get over it. If you want to change the law, propose a Constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the right of secession. I'll thereafter support your right to secede.

 

SCOTUS is charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. In every case brought before it, or any otuer court case, 50% of the persons will be unhappy with the judicial decision. </font>[/QUOTE]Where is this found in the Constitution? The Court assumed this authority without warrant.

The power of SCOTUS to interpret is theirs regardless of whether you agree with their interpretation or not. Their interpretation applies to all under the Constitution, whether we like it or not. </font>[/QUOTE]It is maintained by force of the government in power and the indolence on the part of the citizenry. Where are the powers of interpretation found in the Consitution?

I'm amused at how you use Yankee as a derogatory term. </font>[/QUOTE]I really can’t say anything good about it. However, all Northerners are not Yankees and some live in CA. It is an attitude—loud, brassy, know-it-all, irritating, busybodies, smug, arrogant, mouthy, crude, rude, pushy, etc.

Neither ou nor states have that right according to the Constitution. That has been verified in Court numerous times. Like it or not, that's the facts.

You tried. You lost. The court verified it. Get over it. If you want to change the law, propose a Constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing the right of secession. I'll thereafter support your right to secede. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you don’t really understand. A right may be denied by force but it doesn’t cease being a right. Get that? A right is not a right because a court grants or denies it. Understand? People have been denied the most basic rights of life, liberty, property and life but the rights still exist. Someone said, “Truth may be crushed and oppressed by force but it is still truth nonetheless.” That, friend, is a basic attitude of Southerners.

As for losing . . . . Well, I don’t mean to brag but we’re still holding strong in SC. They’re not doing too badly in other Southern states either (e.g. Alabama). I don’t suppose you are knowledgeable enough to know of Wade Hampton and the Red Shirts. It seems that we gained back control of our state after a decade long rule of carpetbaggers, scalawags and other riffraff. We have been in pretty good control since the end of Reconstruction.

 

Aside from the legal-consitutional issues of states seceding, it seems so stupid that the US, particulary in the 3 decades following WWII, both approved and connived at the independence of many African and island "nations," smaller than many counties in the USA, from colonial powers or conquering neighbors-- supposedly based on the cultural sovereignty of whatever people inhabit the lands in question-- and that is not considered in our own country. Independence for a pea, and dependence for a watermelon.

 

That would be Article III. SCOTUS has the responsibility to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution. This is known as judicial review and enables the Court to invalidate both federal and state laws when they conflict with the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.

You and/or I may not always like their rulings, but that doesn't change the above-noted fact.

Your prejudicial ignorance is showing.

I understand completely. The Constitution appears to be something you can discard when it doesn't work the way you like (even though the established Constitutional mode of fixing this problem is via the amendment process). I'd make a blanket comment about southerners right about here, but then I'd be guilty of the same prejudicial ignorance that you demonstrate.

 

Actually, I don't think the SC was tasked with deciding the constitutionality of congressional decisions until it assumed that responsibility with
Marbury v. Madison.

Also, someone said the founders never imagined secession but that is not quite accurate either since two states (Virginia and I think NY) included provisions in their acceptance that indicated they retained the right to withdraw from the Union at their own descretion. So, I suppose it depends on how you define "founders" but it would certainly seem the founders of the Union thought about the possibility.

 

Actually, the court can only issue an "OPINION" on the law, only the House/Senate has Legislative powers.

If the law isn't in compliance with their "opinion", then the House/Senate have to change the law to make it comply.

And the "PEOPLE" have another way of "NULLIFYING" their "opinion", "JURY NULLIFICATION", refusing to find a person guilty under a law they consider "un-Constitutional".

However, get a Judge to explain that in his "jury instructions".

Actually, having no power to pass laws establishing/prohibiting the free exercise of religion, really means they have "NO JURDICTION" to issue an opinion "EITHER WAY".

Religion was to be "TOTALLY FREE" to seek whatever level it could obtain within the population.

G. Washington said: religion was the supports of this government and "ANYONE" seeking to destroy this support could not claim the tribute of "patriotism". (Farewell address)

 

That would be Article III. SCOTUS has the responsibility to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution. This is known as judicial review and enables the Court to invalidate both federal and state laws when they conflict with the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.

You and/or I may not always like their rulings, but that doesn't change the above-noted fact.

[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]Judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The court assumed it in Marbury v. Madison. The Constitution does not expressly grant this power to the court. Your so-called fact is false. You are wrong again.

 

I don't have time for this childish repartee. If you cannot offer substantive content or ideas, then I have no interest in chat for chat’s sake.