What's new

New Palin BK info

Our basic disagreement is cornered on your statement here:

"Also, where does it say in the US Constitution that it is illegal for a state to secede? Remember, these people are not preaching the violent overthrow of the US Government or spying for a foreign country."

If one has to present a question such as that, it identifies their position regarding the integrity of the United States as it stands today. Your defense of Palin and her AIP card carrying husbands is explained.

"The other view is no, the Constitution is not a pact among states; it is a contract among all people in the nation - it's an irreversible commitment," says Stephen Presser, a legal historian at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.

Questions of legality

Today, most experts say states have no legal right to secede.

"To exercise the right of secession requires a violation of national law," says Herman Belz, a professor of history at the University of Maryland."

Show me where in the US Constitution where it is expressly forbidden. Then show me where either Todd or Sara Palin have advocated the violent overthrow of the US government.

Just remember NBN, innocent until proven guilty.
 
Show me where in the US Constitution where it is expressly forbidden. Then show me where either Todd or Sara Palin have advocated the violent overthrow of the US government.

Just remember NBN, innocent until proven guilty.


Give it a rest...

"The American Civil War and Texas v. White established that states do not have the right to secede, and under the Constitution of the United States, and they are not allowed to conduct foreign policy."

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual.
This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null."

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

You join the Palins and try to secede through political "Breach of Allegiance" and let us know what the US Gov. thinks. (Ruby Ridge)
 
You know the old saying give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves with it?

From The New Republic article....

Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

< http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca >

< http://www.tnr.com/downloads/secession.pdf >

< http://www.tnr.com/downloads/misesmarch95.pdf >

But wait, there's more!

< http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1994.pdf >


Now try and separate the Ludwig von Mises Institute from Ron Paul. Guess what, you can't. Especially when it's founder Lew Rockwell served as his Chief of Staff at one point. So I guess using your own definition Ron Paul must be guilty of treason. Now I'm not expecting you to admit that. I'm going to guess one of three things is going to occur. One, you will ignore this post and pretend it does not exist. Two, you will find some excuse which will make you guilty of having a blatant double standard. Three, you will admit that he's guilty of treason, in your eyes of course. Not that I expect you to do that.
 
You know the old saying give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves with it?

From The New Republic article....

Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

< http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca >

< http://www.tnr.com/downloads/secession.pdf >

< http://www.tnr.com/downloads/misesmarch95.pdf >

But wait, there's more!

< http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1994.pdf >


Now try and separate the Ludwig von Mises Institute from Ron Paul. Guess what, you can't. Especially when it's founder Lew Rockwell served as his Chief of Staff at one point. So I guess using your own definition Ron Paul must be guilty of treason. Now I'm not expecting you to admit that. I'm going to guess one of three things is going to occur. One, you will ignore this post and pretend it does not exist. Two, you will find some excuse which will make you guilty of having a blatant double standard. Three, you will admit that he's guilty of treason, in your eyes of course. Not that I expect you to do that.


You need EAP.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top