Ron Paul: Anti-American and Enemy to the United States

[patrickaa317]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

[thegreekdog]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

[Symmetry]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

And there's that whole racism issue. With the slavery and such.

[patrickaa317]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

Would you be in favor of downsizing state government control and controlling things at more of a federal level? I don't think many of the 13 original colonies would have agreed to permanently form a union if they were losing all ability to get out of it at any point where they no longer agreed with the intent of the [r]epublican government.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

And there's that whole racism issue. With the slavery and such.

Yes, true. Secession is also seen as a bad thing because the last time the issue came up (in the United States) was with slavery as the key issue. Despite this forum, the United States is not the only organized country in the world. Here are some more, later, secessions:

- Austria seceded from Nazi Germany in 1945.
- Various states seceded from the Soviet Union in the 1990s.
- Various states seceded from Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

I suspect there are other examples of states that have seceded for reasons other than slavery. Secession is not automatically bad because a group of states in one country tried to secede over the issue of slavery 150 years ago.

[patrickaa317]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

And there's that whole racism issue. With the slavery and such.

Yes slavery is stupid. And it's also irrelevant and off-topic with the recent discussions of secession. If you want to start a thread on the original secession, slavery, the civil war, and the such, go for it but it has nothing to do with Ron Paul and the recent secession discussions.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

Would you be in favor of downsizing state government control and controlling things at more of a federal level? I don't think many of the 13 original colonies would have agreed to permanently form a union if they were losing all ability to get out of it at any point where they no longer agreed with the intent of the [r]epublican government.

No, I am not in favor of increasing federal control and decreasing state control. In my opinion, the role of the federal government should be limited to regulating interstate commerce and defending the member states from invasion (I'm sure there are other things too).

[Symmetry]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

And there's that whole racism issue. With the slavery and such.

Yes, true. Secession is also seen as a bad thing because the last time the issue came up (in the United States) was with slavery as the key issue. Despite this forum, the United States is not the only organized country in the world. Here are some more, later, secessions:

- Austria seceded from Nazi Germany in 1945.
- Various states seceded from the Soviet Union in the 1990s.
- Various states seceded from Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

I suspect there are other examples of states that have seceded for reasons other than slavery. Secession is not automatically bad because a group of states in one country tried to secede over the issue of slavery 150 years ago.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Practically, secession is stupid.

Oh dear, there is that. Is it just practically stupid in the US?

[patrickaa317]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

Would you be in favor of downsizing state government control and controlling things at more of a federal level? I don't think many of the 13 original colonies would have agreed to permanently form a union if they were losing all ability to get out of it at any point where they no longer agreed with the intent of the [r]epublican government.

No, I am not in favor of increasing federal control and decreasing state control. In my opinion, the role of the federal government should be limited to regulating interstate commerce and defending the member states from invasion (I'm sure there are other things too).

Can you truly allow the states to have more control and the federal government to have less control if you aren't willing to allow them to leave at their own will? Once the federal government states they cannot leave at their own will, the federal government can then enforce any law upon them rendering the state government irrelevant over time.

I 100% agree with what the federal government should be limited to but you can never limit them to that if you also want to permanently bind the state to the union. Once you permanently bind that state, there is no repercussion to an overreaching federal government.

[thegreekdog]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not saying I agree with a secession movement but if a state cannot opt out of the union why even have the union broken into many states?

Do you feel that those people that think Germany or Luxembourg have the right to leave the European union are anti-European and an enemy to the EU?

There are many problems with secession, legal and practical. Caselaw notwithstanding, it is clear that the Constitution was a compact between various states (similar to the EU) and that getting out of the compact is doable legally. Some historian (Shelby Foote maybe?) said that the southern states would never have gotten into the federal compact if they didn't think they could get out of it.

That being said, secession is legally not doable because of caselaw and because no federal court in the United States would ever allow it.

Practically, secession is stupid.

Would you be in favor of downsizing state government control and controlling things at more of a federal level? I don't think many of the 13 original colonies would have agreed to permanently form a union if they were losing all ability to get out of it at any point where they no longer agreed with the intent of the [r]epublican government.

No, I am not in favor of increasing federal control and decreasing state control. In my opinion, the role of the federal government should be limited to regulating interstate commerce and defending the member states from invasion (I'm sure there are other things too).

Can you truly allow the states to have more control and the federal government to have less control if you aren't willing to allow them to leave at their own will? Once the federal government states they cannot leave at their own will, the federal government can then enforce any law upon them rendering the state government irrelevant over time.

I 100% agree with what the federal government should be limited to but you can never limit them to that if you also want to permanently bind the state to the union. Once you permanently bind that state, there is no repercussion to an overreaching federal government.

There are repurcussions apart from secession (namely voting). While the power of our current federal government is a problem, I think it's just a symptom. The problem has become the political process itself, which is a popularity contest between two people who have in common the same views on most issues and offer no real choice.

[patrickaa317]

There are repurcussions apart from secession (namely voting). While the power of our current federal government is a problem, I think it's just a symptom. The problem has become the political process itself, which is a popularity contest between two people who have in common the same views on most issues and offer no real choice.

I would agree with that but I think the biggest way to keep the federal government in check would be to constantly have a fear of 10-15 states giving them the one finger salute and forming their own union. I never want to see a state leave the union but I like the idea of that bargaining chip being completely off the table even less.

One major thing that the founders didn't recognize was the likelihood of a two-party system. From what I understand, they initially thought the legislature would be made up of many, many different small factions, mostly based around single topic issues.

[Symmetry]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

[patrickaa317]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

Yes slavery is stupid. And it's also irrelevant and off-topic with the recent discussions of secession. If you want to start a thread on the original secession, slavery, the civil war, and the such, go for it but it has nothing to do with Ron Paul and the recent secession discussions.

[Symmetry]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

Yes slavery is stupid. And it's also irrelevant and off-topic with the recent discussions of secession. If you want to start a thread on the original secession, slavery, the civil war, and the such, go for it but it has nothing to do with Ron Paul and the recent secession discussions.

I disagree Patrick, not about your sharp observation that "slavery is stupid". I'm quite happy to let that one stand on it's own merits.

I do happen to think that talking about states seceding from the union might perchance make people think of the last time states tried to secede from the union.

show

[warmonger1981]

The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.

[_sabotage_]

The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.

+1

[Symmetry]

The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.

Are you critcising Paul's desire for power, or praising him?

[patrickaa317]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

Yes slavery is stupid. And it's also irrelevant and off-topic with the recent discussions of secession. If you want to start a thread on the original secession, slavery, the civil war, and the such, go for it but it has nothing to do with Ron Paul and the recent secession discussions.

I disagree Patrick, not about your sharp observation that "slavery is stupid". I'm quite happy to let that one stand on it's own merits.

I do happen to think that talking about states seceding from the union might perchance make people think of the last time states tried to secede from the union.

show

http://www.freehawaii.org/ -- Are these people racists too? My belief is that you do think they are racists and the only reason they wanted to secede was they knew that a black man born there was eventually going to become president of the union; and they knew that one way to stop it would be to secede from the union. Or some whacked up thing like that.

A little closer to your current area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence Are these people racists?

[Symmetry]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

Yes slavery is stupid. And it's also irrelevant and off-topic with the recent discussions of secession. If you want to start a thread on the original secession, slavery, the civil war, and the such, go for it but it has nothing to do with Ron Paul and the recent secession discussions.

I disagree Patrick, not about your sharp observation that "slavery is stupid". I'm quite happy to let that one stand on it's own merits.

I do happen to think that talking about states seceding from the union might perchance make people think of the last time states tried to secede from the union.

show

http://www.freehawaii.org/ -- Are these people racists too? My belief is that you do think they are racists and the only reason they wanted to secede was they knew that a black man born there was eventually going to become president of the union; and they knew that one way to stop it would be to secede from the union. Or some whacked up thing like that.

A little closer to your current area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence Are these people racists?

You have, unfortunately, mistaken sarcasm for racism. There's no "I" in sarcasm. Most of the other letters you're okay on. It's tough to remember them all though, so I'll forgive your use of a picture when using your words failed you.

[Symmetry]

Huh, he ran away kind of quickly. Come back Patrick!

[CreepersWiener]

The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.

+1

Yes, yes. Fine words for an Age that has seen its doom.

Liberty is a jealous thing: in times of peace it is carelessly flaunted with irreverent glee, touted for pseudo-patriotism and political gains...in times of war it is clung to like a mother's bosom, all the while the babe screams in the wilderness, alone and starving. The mother was shot dead, lying in the snow; but yet, alas, did the mother know that she concentrated power? That it was that she bore the child and gave it sustenance to live? To thrive? To grow? To die?

Yes, Liberty is a jealous thing.

Oh yes...I need an image whereas my words hath failed:

[tzor]

Can you truly allow the states to have more control and the federal government to have less control if you aren't willing to allow them to leave at their own will? Once the federal government states they cannot leave at their own will, the federal government can then enforce any law upon them rendering the state government irrelevant over time.

There are a couple of interesting issues in your statement. The US Constitution is a Federal Constitution, but the 10th amendment is rather interesting. Powers not delegated to the Federal Goverment are assumed to belong to the states or to the people respectively. This gets even more interesting with the constitutional amendment that put Seantors from being voted upon by state legislatures to the people. Since the states no longer have any skin in the game, wouldn't it be the people, not the state that should be the driver of succession?

Second, the constitution has no provisions for succession. It actually has no provisions for federal enforcement of laws; the nullification argument actually holds more sway than the secession argument. Considering that it has provisions to keep states from breaking apart into two but none for succession, this is an interesting but still never constitutionally resolved issue. Given the current Ameritopian nature of the current court, who knows what they would say?

Second the authority that binds the states to the Federal Government is the Constitution. The federal government cannot enforce "any law" because it must be bound by that Constitution, otherwise the Constitution is void and states have both a right and an obligation to seceede due to breach of contract. (It is the fact that they have failed to do so is proof that they have accepted the notion of Ameritopia and thus can't complain when this leads to their own destruction. States are more than happy to go to the trough of federal dollars taken from their own people through federal taxes.)

[thegreekdog]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

And again we come back to the following question - are you trolling or are you a moron?

[Symmetry]

I think patrick put it better than I did. Slavery has nothing to do with the current discussion of secession except to use as a strawman.

It is practically stupid in the US, yes. I think secession is stupid. My opinion has nothing to do with slavery. If this is hard for you to understand, perhaps this is not the best thread for you to participate.

Yeah dude, relating a bunch of Southern states seceding to Slavery is just crazy talk on my part. I'm not even sure why I associated the terms. There was that war, where slavery was kind of important, and also secession. But yeah dude, it's not like the issues are related. Dude.

And again we come back to the following question - are you trolling or are you a moron?

Charming as always TGD. Can you try to stay civil?