Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 93
Thanks Tree58Thanks

Thread: South Carolina lawmakers introduce bill to begin secession debate

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70,528
    Thanks
    34420

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Liberty will rise again, against the regressives.
    Talk...

  2. #42
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,222
    Thanks
    4454

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, he is not.

    You, however, are either blind to what is "going on in this country," or are a part of it.
    You democrats are not the country

  3. #43
    One
    One is online now
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10,168
    Thanks
    7797

    From
    ----> X <----
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    If democrats think gun owners are just going let guns be confiscated they are in for big surprise. Gun owners will fight to keep their guns and their constitutional rights.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ced-over-gun-/
    fear feAR FEAR
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #44
    Card carrying weirdo BYG Jacob's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    14,123
    Thanks
    6808

    From
    Tucson, Arizona
    stop quoting ptif, and just toss him on ignore.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and OldGaffer

  5. #45
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,222
    Thanks
    4454

    Quote Originally Posted by BYG Jacob View Post
    stop quoting ptif, and just toss him on ignore.
    Yes many cowards put me on ignore

  6. #46
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    16,819
    Thanks
    13348

    From
    Houston, Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Yes many cowards put me on ignore
    Well, I don't have you on Ignore, no sir, not me! You provide half the laughs around here, along with your pearls of wisdom.
    Thanks from Friday13 and BigLeRoy

  7. #47
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,922
    Thanks
    32916

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    You democrats are not the country
    Nor are you conservatives, whether Republican or right-wingnut or any other version. This country is roughly half-and-half. Your incessant attacks on Democrats, liberals and anyone else you do not like - just like your messiah, Trump - merely demonstrate you put politics above country based on the hatred you never stop articulating.
    Thanks from Panzareta and OldGaffer

  8. #48
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,137
    Thanks
    32099

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Close, but not quite. There are two possible ways a state could legally leave the United States:

    1) Revolution; or,

    2) Consent of the states.

    Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 726 (1869).

    Revolution is obvious, of course, because in that case the Constitution will have been rendered void as a practical matter and the government it created would be destroyed and replaced. It is not clear, however, what "consent of the states" means, except that consent of ALL the states would certainly be constitutional, because that was not a question the White Court had to address.

    So it can be done. It just is not likely. In any event, the potential threat of another civil war by conservatives is why liberals should stockpile weapons and ammunition, to defend against conservatives who would seek to destroy the Constitution by force of arms.


    That much is true.
    A] Where in the US Constitution or in the SC ruling Texas v White does either state that revolution is a lawful act?

    B] Where in Texas v White does it opine that there is a lawful way in the US Constitution for a state to leave the union other that to say ...with consent of the states.

    The only way the states can give consent is by constitutional method is amending the Constitution to allow it.

    Not revolution ....or any other method ....is listed in the Constitution as a method in which a state cam leave the union.

    Texas v White

    Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

    It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

    the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,

    and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]

    When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.

    Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

    Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.


  9. #49
    Veteran Member Panzareta's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    33,919
    Thanks
    20757

    From
    On a happy trail
    Quote Originally Posted by John T Ford View Post
    You do realize California is talking succession too, right?

    And, last I checked California was not considered part of the south.

    You guys ignorance of any given topic is entertaining if nothing else.
    California has it's share of nit wits too. But mainly what's being "debated" here is splitting the state in two and giving us two more senators. Plus I doubt the State of Jefferson nutters want to give up their Social Security and Medicare benefits. Bwahahaha
    Last edited by Panzareta; 8th April 2018 at 07:40 PM.

  10. #50
    DEEP STATE CEO Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    9,707
    Thanks
    7159

    From
    SPECTRE HQ
    What for? To qualify for international aid?

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GOP lawmakers introduce bill to require union recertification
    By Neomalthusian in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11th November 2017, 09:24 AM
  2. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 1st May 2017, 06:40 PM
  3. Republican South Carolina Debate Tonight - 2/13/16
    By boontito in forum Current Events
    Replies: 435
    Last Post: 15th February 2016, 08:20 AM
  4. The South Carolina GOP Debate: New and fresh rhetoric
    By RationalLeft in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th January 2008, 10:26 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed