| 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: |
| Ron Paul, As Delusional As Ever | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 21 2009, 01:18 PM (726 Views) | |
| Larry | Apr 21 2009, 07:52 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Then you obviously are unaware of the Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mccandliss1.html The notion that states are *not* sovereign is what's silly. As with a lot of other things, over time original intentions have been replaced by the warped thinking of those who follow. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word "nation". That's because at the time the Constitution was being hammered out, no one intended to create a "nation" in the sense that all the individual states were agreeing to hand over their individual sovereignty to a new "nation". The only word you'll find used in the Constitution is "union". That's because the goods being sold to the states was that all the sovereign states were agreeing to come together as a union of sovereign states to share certain things in common with a limited federal government, its authority limited to what was agreed upon in the Constitution that tells it what its rights are. That's what a "union" is Quirt - several independent groups coming together under a common bond, each retaining their independence from each other, with the union being the one limited in what it can do, not the other way around. A quote from the article I referenced: "Here the term "delegated" requires contextual definition, meaning literally "to make lesser law;" when powers are "delegated," they are merely passed down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior principal authority, in order to provide that agent with representative "proxy" authority to carry out respective duties. In no way may does this delegated authority ever supersede or negate that of the delegating body – any more than a company employee who is delegated authority by his manager, can give orders to the firm's owner, or override the dictates of such. Rather, such a representative can be overridden at any time at the behest of the superior – or discharged entirely. As such, a "delegation" clause cannot be seen as a compromise or surrender of sovereignty in any way. Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus "retained" from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement: "That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do" (emphasis in original). (Note that the term "state" used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term "nation" for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term "United States" literally meant "United Nations.")" As the above points out quite accurately Quirt, even the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that each state is an independent nation, and in no way did they give up their independence when they agreed to form a Union. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 21 2009, 07:55 PM Post #27 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
This is the conclusion from that article: "In conclusion, I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand, against all believed likelihood of success; perhaps such persons believe Lincoln's claim – which he makes in his First Inaugural Address once again – that "All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties [sic] and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them" (emphasis added). In like manner, I cannot answer how any rational or thinking person can be so naive, as to actually believe that any laws or order can be made so perfect as to preclude any incidence whatsoever of government breaches or excesses – to the extent of such "never arising" – so that the supreme protection of national sovereignty was no longer considered necessary or even desirable to the people of any state in the Union. Rather, I can only prove that such supreme national sovereignty was established and recognized by law for each and every state – and that no law or document that surrendered or compromised it in any manner whatsoever, was ever passed or ratified by them." |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 21 2009, 11:35 PM Post #28 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I'm aware of the Articles of Confederation. I'm also aware that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because everyone believed that the Articles of Confederation did not form a strong enough union among the states. Referring to a document that was superseded and replaced because it was insufficient for the intended purpose doesn't exactly win you any debating points. Let's go back to the very article that you cited, without providing the title or the link to it.
That's been settled law for over 140 years. To revise that judgment would require another civil war. As I've said before, that isn't going to happen, your doom and gloom prophesies notwithstanding. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 22 2009, 12:40 AM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Secession is not going to happen, simply because no state could survive economically isolated from all other states. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 22 2009, 03:37 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I can think of four states that would do just fine, and there may be more, but Texas, California, Alaska, and Hawai'i would each fare quite well. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 22 2009, 04:17 AM Post #31 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Hawaii's ability to defend itself might come into question. You have to assume that, after dissolution, we'd be willing to enter a NATO-like agreement with them. California is practically its own country anyway. Texas would do fine, but not alone ... however, if Texas were to leave, I have to believe that some of the Southern states would go with it. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 22 2009, 04:20 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Yeah... Hawai'i would have a problem with defense. I agree that if Texas seceded, Oklahoma and Arkansas would probably go along with it. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 22 2009, 06:00 AM Post #33 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Quirt, I understand that that is your position. I also understand that other attorneys with at least equal knowledge of the matter to you share my opinion. So let's look at what each opinion is saying. Your opinion is saying that the states have entered into a perpetual agreement from which they have no way to escape. They have all given up their right to independence, and are left nothing more than slaves to a federal government, making the federal government superior to the states. It elevates the federal government to a dictatorship of the states. My opinion is in line with the spirit of what the states agreed to originally, a position that was accepted by all the states prior to Lincoln making a speech declaring that position was no longer valid. Sorry, but I'll stand on the side of the States, and if Tennessee should ever decide it's had enough of the federal government and opts to challenge your views, I'll be right there fighting alongside the original intent of it all, however they choose to fight. You may be willing to be a slave, I'm not. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 22 2009, 06:03 AM Post #34 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Why not? There are many economically successful independent countries that are smaller than US states. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 22 2009, 06:16 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The first thing we must do is stop thinking of secession as the state that secedes somehow turning its back on the rest of the states and isolating itself. France isn't part of Germany either, but they do just fine. If a state was to secede from the union, (the word "nation" does not exist in the Constitution) it would continue to do business with the other states, it just wouldn't be subject to the federal government any longer. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 22 2009, 06:26 AM Post #36 |
|
MAMIL
|
I don't think it's the state that would suffer, but the USA as a whole. It's hard to be a superpower if you're not a country any more, or a country made up of lots of states that don't do a whole lot, which is what could conceivably happen. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Apr 22 2009, 06:28 AM Post #37 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm tired of this country being a superpower and thinking it should police the world. Screw that. It's wholly unaffordable anyway. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 22 2009, 06:55 AM Post #38 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Be careful what you wish for. Despite our flaws, as the leading nation we're also the greatest source of representative government and the advancement of human rights the world has ever known. If we just decide to back out there will be others willing to fulfill that leadership role who may not hold dear what we do. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| RosemaryTwo | Apr 22 2009, 07:00 AM Post #39 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Plus, imagine what that would do to this Miss America contest. |
| "Perhaps the thing to do is just to let stupid run its course." Aqua | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 22 2009, 07:02 AM Post #40 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Oh, I wish they all could be California girls..... |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Apr 22 2009, 07:06 AM Post #41 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
None of that will matter very much when we go completely bankrupt my friend. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 22 2009, 07:08 AM Post #42 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
If we go bankrupt, so goes the world, in many ways. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Apr 22 2009, 07:10 AM Post #43 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Also, there are quite a few countries in the world who uphold human rights and representative governments. I really don't think the world would go to sh!t if we stopped being the big kid on the block as far as military presence in other countries is concerned. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 22 2009, 08:49 AM Post #44 |
|
MAMIL
|
The thing about change is it's pretty hard to predict what would happen. There's China, Russia, the European Union, maybe India - all very different cultures and values. Who really knows what would happen if the US changes? Would Americans still be as rich? For all the complaining from the tea-bag brigade, the US is the most affluent country in the world, and let's be honest, this fact isn't true because Americans work harder than everyone else. Let's face it - most people living in poorer countries would be a little bemused by all the protesting. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 22 2009, 09:35 AM Post #45 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
OK, let's follow this line of reasoning for a moment. How do these knowledgeable lawyers deal with the Civil War and the Texas Supreme Court case? Other than to just dismiss them as wrong, I mean. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 22 2009, 09:42 AM Post #46 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I also want to point out one other thing. I'm loyal to America no matter who is properly elected, whether I agree or not. Your loyalty seems conditioned on agreeing with the validly elected leaders. If you don't like what they are doing, you want to take your ball and leave. Which one is the real meaning of patriotism? What happened to, my country, right or wrong? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 22 2009, 09:54 AM Post #47 |
|
MAMIL
|
As a Victorian Englishman once said, this has as much meaning as 'My mother, drunk or sober'. Are you chaps finally catching on, just as you begin to lose your Top Nation status? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 22 2009, 09:57 AM Post #48 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Let someone else be "top nation." Top of the sh!theap is still part of the sh!theap.One of these days, I'm simply going to vanish from the United States. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 22 2009, 10:13 AM Post #49 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I don't have time right now to answer your other question, but I'll address this one because it won't take too long. What happened to "my country right or wrong"? Let me use an analogy - I can cuss my sister. But if you cuss my sister, I'm going to fight you. My country right or wrong is fine when someone outside the US is picking on us and we're responding. It doesn't apply to issues within the country, in other words, if a faction of the country is doing things that will destroy the nation, then that should be fought with the same fervor that we'd fight "insert foreign nation here" with. Which is the "real meaning of patriotism"? You've drawn a strawman. Is it patriotic to sit on your hands and watch an out of control government take the nation down the toilet? The question I would ask you is "who are you being patriotic to"? It seems you think the one we are supposed to be patriotic to is the government "right or wrong". I don't subsribe to that notion. If the government is doing its job, if the government is following the Constitution, then yes, I'll support it to the end. If on the other hand the government is not doing its job, if it's not following the Constitution, and if the actions of those elected to office is putting the nation in peril, or heading us in a way that is not in keeping with the will of the people who elected them, then not only will I not support it, I will do everything in my power to change it. Our government is not doing its job. It is taking us toward a Socialist State, it is overstepping its authority, and it is headed in the wrong direction. If it takes secession, let's have at it. If it takes another civil war, let's have at it. But the LAST thing a true patriot should do is decide that the federal government is another King of England and just roll over and let a group of power hungry ideologues ruin it. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 22 2009, 10:21 AM Post #50 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
The whole world is a sh!theap??? Sing "What a Wonderful World" a few dozen times, you'll feel better. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









Let someone else be "top nation." Top of the sh!theap is still part of the sh!theap.
6:04 AM Jul 11