Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Ron Paul, As Delusional As Ever
Topic Started: Apr 21 2009, 01:18 PM (723 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/21/ron-paul-secession-is-american/
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Secession *is* American.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Well, I guess since Obama admires Lincoln, maybe now is not such an auspicious time to talk secession, eh? :lol:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
If, like Doctor Paul, you bally chaps are referring to what was done in the 1790's, a/k/a The War of Western Aggression, then we British prefer the word 'treason'.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Apr 21 2009, 01:19 PM
Secession *is* American.
Crushing secession mercilessly is also quintessentially American.


It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
It's amazing how quick you are to demean and ridicule someone simply because of your own distorted views.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mark
Apr 21 2009, 01:44 PM
It's amazing how quick you are to demean and ridicule someone simply because of your own distorted views.
If someone says the moon is made of Swiss cheese, I'm going to ridicule them.

If someone says the federal government is hiding evidence of alien life firms, I'm going to ridicule them.

And if someone says secession is a realistic option and that the dollar is going to collapse, I'm going to ridicule them.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pianolicious
Senior Carp
When I lived in Texas during the oil embargo there was a common bumper sticker that said "Drive 90. Freeze a Yankee."

Talks of secession aren't new. It's (as Paul points out) the reaction to it that's indicative of how we've evolved. It's now viewed as treasonous to even mention it even when it's clearly framed as an idea.

Paul is saying that we are no longer free to think freely, and there's a grain of truth to that.
Sit tibi vita longa et omnia bona!!! -- Dr. Spock
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
And Quirt welcomes that.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 01:42 PM
Larry
Apr 21 2009, 01:19 PM
Secession *is* American.
Crushing secession mercilessly is also quintessentially American.


No, that's quintessential evidence of an out of control federal government that should be seceded from.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
And if someone says secession is a realistic option ......, I'm going to ridicule them.



What part of the Constitution is it you don't understand, Quirt?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Ron Paul: I don’t think it’s very serious. I don’t think anybody called for secession, and I don’t think the governor called for it. But he brings up an important issue. The biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed over an individual who thinks along these lines, because I heard people say, well, this is treasonous and this was un-American. But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession, we seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society.

There is absolutely nothing to ridicule in there. Nothing. And if you insist there is, then you deserve to be ridiculed.
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Apr 21 2009, 02:03 PM
Quote:
 
And if someone says secession is a realistic option ......, I'm going to ridicule them.



What part of the Constitution is it you don't understand, Quirt?
The part that allows secession, I'm not familiar with that part. Care to quote it? Because I've searched for the word "secede" or "secession" in the Constitution, and I haven't found them.

Lincoln didn't find them, either.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mark
Apr 21 2009, 02:04 PM
Quote:
 
Ron Paul: I don’t think it’s very serious. I don’t think anybody called for secession, and I don’t think the governor called for it. But he brings up an important issue. The biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed over an individual who thinks along these lines, because I heard people say, well, this is treasonous and this was un-American. But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession, we seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society.

There is absolutely nothing to ridicule in there. Nothing. And if you insist there is, then you deserve to be ridiculed.
Do you remember what was required to make that secession happen, Mark?

A Revolutionary War.

Care to quote all of the peaceful examples of secession in the history of the world? I think there are a couple, but they are the tiny minority of examples. Secession is usually a bloody, ugly, messy business.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Back in 04, after the election there was (not serious) talk of California seceding from the left. I recall the right shrugging their shoulders and saying "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya'".

Now there's (not serious) talk of Texas seceding, and he left is up in arms. Too funny.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Luke's Dad
Apr 21 2009, 02:56 PM
Back in 04, after the election there was (not serious) talk of California seceding from the left. I recall the right shrugging their shoulders and saying "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya'".

Now there's (not serious) talk of Texas seceding, and he left is up in arms. Too funny.
Again, I ask ... was that talk coming from the Governor? Or a Congressman?

If it was just a few crackpots, it's not exactly the same as when an elected official is a crackpot.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Actually, the largest example is also the most recent - the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Quite bloodless, actually. Until now.

But is it an option for American states? History would say no.

Mark, I agree with you that Paul said nothing deserving of ridicule or even very controversial in the statement you quoted.


Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The part that allows secession, I'm not familiar with that part. Care to quote it?


Since the power of the federal government comes directly from the people who elected it, and the Constitution was written not to tell the people what their rights are but to spell out the limits of the federal government, it isn't necessary for me to show you where the Constitution allows for it, it is up to you to show where the Constitution denies that right.

Here's a quote from an article on "findlaw":

"The Argument for a Right of Unilateral Secession: A Pact Among the States

The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession. Accordingly, the argument for a right of unilateral secession begins (and pretty much ends) with a claim about the very nature of the Constitution.

That document, by the terms of its Article VII, only obtained legal force through the ratification by nine states, and then only in the states so ratifying it. Because the Constitution derived its initial force from the voluntary act of consent by the sovereign states, secessionists argued, a state could voluntarily and unilaterally withdraw its consent from the Union.

In this view, the Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union."

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Apr 21 2009, 03:04 PM
Actually, the largest example is also the most recent - the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Quite bloodless, actually. Until now.

Actually still now with the notable exception of Chechnya. The Georgian issue is not about Georgia being reabsorbed into Russia. Rather it is about two provinces of the USSR that were formerly part of the Soviet Republic of Georgia that did not want to remain a part of an independent Georgian state following the dissolution of the USSR. They wanted and still wish either outright independence or incorporation into the Russian Federation.

As well, the amicable divorce between the constituent parts of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic was probably the most recent- December 31, 1992.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Apr 21 2009, 03:04 PM
Quote:
 
The part that allows secession, I'm not familiar with that part. Care to quote it?


Since the power of the federal government comes directly from the people who elected it, and the Constitution was written not to tell the people what their rights are but to spell out the limits of the federal government, it isn't necessary for me to show you where the Constitution allows for it, it is up to you to show where the Constitution denies that right.

Here's a quote from an article on "findlaw":

"The Argument for a Right of Unilateral Secession: A Pact Among the States

The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession. Accordingly, the argument for a right of unilateral secession begins (and pretty much ends) with a claim about the very nature of the Constitution.

That document, by the terms of its Article VII, only obtained legal force through the ratification by nine states, and then only in the states so ratifying it. Because the Constitution derived its initial force from the voluntary act of consent by the sovereign states, secessionists argued, a state could voluntarily and unilaterally withdraw its consent from the Union.

In this view, the Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union."

I believe that position was rejected in a fairly dispositive manner in the mid-1800s.

Moreover, the notion that the states are sovereign is just silly. They aren't. They may retain sovereignty with regard to a wide range of issues, but ultimately they are not sovereign entities. They are part of a compact that does not provide for rights of withdrawal. It's kind of like marriage under the Catholic Church, before the Catholic Church became so goldarned liberal about granting annulments to those willing to pay for the privilege.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
By the way, you might want to look at this. It's the article you quoted, but it reaches quite a different conclusion:

Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? With Permission, Perhaps; Unilaterally, No

Gee, I wonder why you didn't link the article, or provide its title?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 05:11 PM
They are part of a compact that does not provide for rights of withdrawal. It's kind of like marriage under the Catholic Church, before the Catholic Church became so goldarned liberal about granting annulments to those willing to pay for the privilege.
Dangerous analogy.


Better take cover, the resident Inquisition is sure to follow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Renauda
Apr 21 2009, 05:23 PM
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 05:11 PM
They are part of a compact that does not provide for rights of withdrawal. It's kind of like marriage under the Catholic Church, before the Catholic Church became so goldarned liberal about granting annulments to those willing to pay for the privilege.
Dangerous analogy.


Better take cover, the resident Inquisition is sure to follow.
Yeah, but I enjoy living life on the edge. :whome:
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
:lol:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2009, 01:18 PM
Man's got a point. With the exception of Hamilton, I think most of the Founders would agree that seccession, while not being a good thing, was legal.

Maybe Texas can reword this document, as much is still true today:

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3