A Right To Secede?

[Trip]

That is just grand how now Madison is a nationalist and "utter complete and total bull****" lol I guess that you could not deny the obvious facts so you had to throw away Madison.
That moves puts you at severely on the ropes now. That on top of all of your dishonest misrepresentation of know facts just makes me laugh.

BTW I plenty more up my sleeve there are many more documents written by the founders that will make you think that they are "utter complete and total bull****". Lol you should really learn more about the founders before making wild claims.

So here is Jefferson now say exactly what I have been saying. Enjoy.

. My own general idea was that the states should severally preserve their sovereignty in whatever concerns themselves alone, & that whatever may concern another state, or any foreign nation, should be made a part of the federal sovereignty. That the exercise of the federal sovereignty should be divided among three several bodies, legislative, executive, & judiciary, as the state sovereignties are: and that some peaceable means should be contrived for the federal head to enforce compliance on the part of the states. Thomas Jefferson


TO GEORGE WYTHE
Paris Sep. 16, 1787.

It is not as if I have not provided evidence before that Madison is completely wrong in his perspective of desiring a transferring sovereignty entirely to the federal government: Madison - "Father of the Constitution?"



Also, historian Gordon S. Wood is documented as speaking on the matter, as with "Is there a James Madison Problem?", and is even referenced by Wikipedia's discussion of James Madison "Father of the Constitution".

Ive also pointed out in this thread that Madison did not believe that the Constitution was perpetually binding on the states, supporting their right to secede.


Also, in your above reference to Jefferson, Jefferson is not actually talking about federal sovereignty, but rather more accurately about "federal authority", or proxy sovereignty exercised for the states.

This is further supported by the previously discussed Jefferson letter to William B. Giles, in which Jefferson indicates that there can be "no hesitation" in the choice between federal authority and a state severing from the union. If Jefferson were talking about that federal government having actual sovereignty of its own, then there would be no choice whatsoever, but the federal government has no such sovereign authority except when viewed as acting in the international community for the states, and then it is only as a trustee for the cumulative state sovereignty.

 

[Trip]

No mystical power is correct - the powers delegated by the Constitution to Congress are written in Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 thru 17.

News and the ideologies advanced by government cannot change, alter, or amend the Constitution; Article V.

Insanity correctly describes "what is going on in the political arena", not only is government Officials insane but so is the citizenry insane for reelecting Representatives that have dishonored their Oath of Office. Do you suppose griping about government insanity will stop it?

But you were not talking about "powers" of Congress, but rather of "powers of the people" to remedy a corrupt government, and voting is not a "power" at all.

It's not as if either the people, or the government has any license anywhere to operate in an "insane" manner, not even by vote. And no, as evidenced by this thread, "griping about" it will not remedy the problem, but neither will exercising a process <voting> in a thoroughly corrupt government system, particularly since that corruption has long been institutionalized by process into the governance. What is "insane" is imagining that voting can possibly remedy the problem.

 

[Trip]

Is the 2nd amendment for the purpose of correcting government Officials by shooting them?

I've never seen anyone "corrected" by use of a firearm, so I'm going with the latter. If the threat of force does not keep government in line, then obviously the use of that force is necessary.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
~ Thomas Jefferson​

 

[AllanHampton]

But you were not talking about "powers" of Congress, but rather of "powers of the people" to remedy a corrupt government, and voting is not a "power" at all.

If, as you say, the ballot (to elect an Official) and jury boxes, which only the citizenry can use, is not a power then what is it?

If a Representative is not reelected then that Representative must leave office, is forced from office by the voters, isn't that true?

A Juror can hang a jury, can't he? and isn't that a force against unjust laws being enforced by the courts?

 

[AllanHampton]

I've never seen anyone "corrected" by use of a firearm, so I'm going with the latter. If the threat of force does not keep government in line, then obviously the use of that force is necessary.

Correcting government Officials according to the Constitution is what I am writing about. You keep mentioning the 2nd which is not for the purpose of correcting government Officials.

What other method than the ballot box does the citizenry have to correct, or remove from office, a corrupt Representative?

 

[Trip]

If, as you say, the ballot (to elect an Official) and jury boxes, which only the citizenry can use, is not a power then what is it?

If a Representative is not reelected then that Representative must leave office, is forced from office by the voters, isn't that true?

A Juror can hang a jury, can't he? and isn't that a force against unjust laws being enforced by the courts?

It is not a power, because it does not ensure any specific outcome, much less even specifically express a desire for a specific action or inaction by government on a particular issue.

The people elected, the "representatives", do not themselves represent any ideology or government action. They are not symbols of anything except in your own idealized and narrow vision. THis is why voting for, nor not voting for, an individual is only the equivalent of 'relieving oneself in a dark serge suit', making one feel warm and comfy for the moment, but not accomplishing anything positive.

You are relying on "processes" of recognized in the Constitution to fix a corrupt government, when those very processes, exercised over the years, enabled that corrupt government in the first place. There is a wisdom that recognizes "one cannot solve a problem by the same means that created the problem in the first place", and in fact belief to the contrary is exhibiting an idealized view of reality verging on insanity.

This nation's Founders knew that the government could not be kept on the straight and narrow by the mere process of voting, which is why they recognized the need to make a "choice" one day for forced restoration, or secession, and ensured the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed under any circumstances. Those Founders recognized no such "power" that you claim to be in the ballot.

 

[AllanHampton]

It because it does not ensure any specific outcome, much less even specifically express a desire for a specific action or inaction by government on a particular issue.

The above statement is completely false.

The outcome, or purpose of the ballot box, is to elect a Representative, nothing more nothing less.

Most assuredly the particular issue is for the elected Official to take the Oath of Office, nothing more, nothing less. The Official is required to take the Oath and voters, the citizenry, can't change that; Article V.

 

[Trip]

The above statement is completely false.

The outcome, or purpose of the ballot box, is to elect a Representative, nothing more nothing less.

Most assuredly the particular issue is for the elected Official to take the Oath of Office, nothing more, nothing less. The Official is required to take the Oath and voters, the citizenry, can't change that; Article V.

No, the statement is not at all false. You excerpted the statement outside of its relevance, and fact.


The "issue" is not resolved by voting for any specific official, any more so than it is resolved by them having taken an oath of office. These are only processes, and have no magic nor "force" unto them to ensure an outcome of constitutional government.

The oath is entirely irrelevant, but you keep ******* in that dark serge suit and think you've got ahold of some sort of loophole, when all you have is a serious disconnect between fact and ideal, and have been pronouncing this fallacy across numerous thread discussions like a one-trick-pony. There is on force of law to violating an oath; there is no statutory authority applied to violation of the oath; no one has ever been prosecuted for violating that oath. That's reality, and believing otherwise is nothing but the aforementioned bias of normalcy.

 

[AllanHampton]

This nation's Founders knew that the government could not be kept on the straight and narrow by the mere process of voting,

The mere process of voting (choosing Representatives every two years) is the only method of the people to correct Officials that is written in the Constitution, isn't it? If not post the other method that is written in the Constitution?

What the Founders knew is it would require a moral citizenry to maintain Constitutional America.

 

[AllanHampton]

The "issue" and have no magic nor "force" unto them to ensure an outcome of constitutional government.

What would you write in a Constitution to ensure a constitutional government?

 

[Trip]

The mere process of voting (choosing Representatives every two years) is the only method of the people to correct Officials that is written in the Constitution, isn't it? If not post the other method that is written in the Constitution?

What the Founders knew is it would require a moral citizenry to maintain Constitutional America.

No, it "isn't".

The constitution is only written to define and restrain the government, not to define what avenues are in fact available to the people to ensure their freedoms. And no, the process of voting is NOT the "only method" provided by the founders, but other methods have been corrupted as well, inclusive of citizen Grand Juries, state nullification, and the accountability of the Senators specifically to the states, allowing those Senators to be removed by the state legislatures at their whim.

Those founders knew that even having a moral citizenry would not ensure a constitutional America, and believing otherwise is a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, otherwise known as the fallacy of the converse.

This may be uncharitable on my part, but what you propose is nothing short of abject idiocy achieved through repeated application of the fallacy of the converse. The existence of Article V no more prohibits the altering of the Constitution in fact, than does the oath prohibit unconstitutional action of government officials. Your repeated elevation of these things is nothing but naive idealization of them, while in disregard of actual fact. But if there's security in company, you may take solace in the fact you're not at all alone in this vapid approach, with all too many hoping that it may be true as they rely on this normalcy bias.

 

[Trip]

What would you write in a Constitution to ensure a constitutional government?

Words alone in a constitution cannot "ensure" anything, much less the words in the Constitution ensuring adherence to that Constitution itself. Such an expectation is applying some sort of mystical power to the words and document which does not exist.

However your question itself does serve to highlight the grossly naive belief underlying your argument<s>.

 

[AllanHampton]

No, it "isn't".

voting is NOT the "only method" provided by the founders,

What other method provided by the Founders is there for the citizenry to correct elected Officials?

 

[AllanHampton]

Words alone in a constitution cannot "ensure" anything, much less the words in the Constitution ensuring adherence to that Constitution itself. Such an expectation is applying some sort of mystical power to the words and document which does not exist.

Words (or laws) alone do not enforce themselves, is correct.

Such an expectation and or mystical power does not exist, is correct. The Constitution is written in plain language and easy to understand.

What other method provided by the Founders is there for the citizenry to correct elected Officials?

 

[Trip]

What other method provided by the Founders is there for the citizenry to correct elected Officials?

You're like a one-trick pony with this. I answered more specifically in that same post you cherry-pick quoted, but you ignored the answer even as you excerpted my post.

Your question itself involves a whole range of fallacies assumed within it as well.

First, voting is not a method to "correct elected officials"; it does not correct a damn thing, but only might remove an elected official, in no way remedying an overall problem. As such the real considerations are not "other" methods, but the only real approach.

Second, the Founders only methods for maintaining or restoring legitimate governance are not detailed on the Constitution, which is only to form the government, and nothing else.

Third, any one elected official does not represent an overall problem with illegitimate government, which is what we now face, in all three branches. Not only is the problem pervasive within government, but was created under the mistaken and corrupt belief that government's mission is to cater to the voter, or the populace as a whole, and those officials enable their repeated election by buying off constituencies, and bringing home the 'bacon' in special projects and interest funding of "agendas" that are not the legitimate business of government in the first place. As such, your "vote", and the mistaken belief about its purpose, is not only incapable of being the solution, but is a part of the problem that led to corrupt and illegitimate government in the first place.

Voting ensures nothing except, perhaps, vaguely, a "representative government", but voting does not ensure even that!

 

[haymarket]

This is the sort of idiotic rant that got the shiznit slapped outta you throughout this and other threads.

:doh

A bold statement for someone who cannot point to a single post where that has happened. :roll:

 

[haymarket]

I'm willing to give my life to defend my own guaranteed freedoms for my myself, my family and offspring

Are you expecting to be electrocuted due to some wiring calamity as you type out these posts on the internet? :roll:

 

[haymarket]

it simple... in order to stop a state from seceding these things would have to happen.

you I believe ... stated you would use force to keep any secession from happening.

now you don't want to share with us, what kind of force... which would be acceptable to you.

If any power attempted to deprive Americans of their rights, would you not support defending them even if it meant use of force?

 

[AllanHampton]

Second, the Founders only methods for maintaining or restoring legitimate governance are not detailed on the Constitution, which is only to form the government, and nothing else.

As such, your "vote", and the mistaken belief about its purpose, is not only incapable of being the solution, but is a part of the problem that led to corrupt and illegitimate government in the first place.

Voting ensures nothing except, perhaps, vaguely, a "representative government", but voting does not ensure even that!

"Second, the Founders only methods for maintaining or restoring legitimate governance are not detailed on the Constitution, which is only to form the government, and nothing else. "

What Founders method for maintaining or restoring legitimate governance is not detailed in the Constitution? "only formed government" the People are not government and are mentioned as voters and jurors, are they not? So, evidently only formed government is false.

"not detailed on the Constitution" - what else more detailed than the ballot and jury boxes do you recommend for the citizenry to have exclusive use of in the political arena?

Purpose of the vote for a candidate is to elect a candidate, is it not? Voting ensures the people electing a candidate to office does it not. What else is a candidate correctly elected to do other than take and honor the Oath of Office.

 

[haymarket]

Let us not forget that on a state and local level the people in many states do indeed have the power of recall over public officials as well as initiative and referendum. I realize this is NOT on a federal level but it does demonstrate another facet of the powers of the people. And those are utilized at the ballot box through the vote.

 

[Trip]

"Second, the Founders only methods for maintaining or restoring legitimate governance are not detailed on the Constitution, which is only to form the government, and nothing else. "

What Founders method for maintaining or restoring legitimate governance is not detailed in the Constitution? "only formed government" the People are not government and are mentioned as voters and jurors, are they not? So, evidently only formed government is false.

"not detailed on the Constitution" - what else more detailed than the ballot and jury boxes do you recommend for the citizenry to have exclusive use of in the political arena?

Purpose of the vote for a candidate is to elect a candidate, is it not? Voting ensures the people electing a candidate to office does it not. What else is a candidate correctly elected to do other than take and honor the Oath of Office.

The function of the Grand Jury is not detailed in the Constitution, but then it does not belong there because the grand jury is not intended to be a function of the federal government itself, or even the judiciary.

No, there is no distinction between "to form" government, and already formed government.

The claim that the people "are not the government" is a red herring, as it is irrelevant to my points, and furthermore is wrong, as we, the people, are intended to be the government, and not create some sort of government class which dictates our lives unto us, which is what we have now.

Sentences do not start with "so", but such is commonly the herald of malformed thought.

The ballot and the jury box are not how to remedy and restore the constitutional form of government, and only are means maintain an aspect of government function. Nowhere in the ballot, or the jury box, is government determined or remedied by 'voters'; these are not choices in either function.

Voting for a candidate does not ensure that candidate enters office. And having elected that candidate, does not ensure the candidate represents legitimate governance within the constraints of the Constitution. Both of these are insipid claims on your part, but they are even exceeded by the asinine claim that a candidate is elected "to take and honor the Oath of office", which is not the case, and as has already been pointed out, no "oath" ensures any sort of adherence to constitutional governance, and there is no statutory penalty applied directly to not adhering to that oath of office.

As previously indicated, your idealized position is beyond naive, and is actually a part of the problem that got the thoroughly corrupt government we have now.

 

[Trip]

it simple... in order to stop a state from seceding these things would have to happen.

you I believe ... stated you would use force to keep any secession from happening.

now you don't want to share with us, what kind of force... which would be acceptable to you.

If any power attempted to deprive Americans of their rights, would you not support defending them even if it meant use of force?

Secession does not deprive people of rights. There is no individual "right" to be a member of the United States federal government.

Demanding that people remain members of the United States federal government, by inappropriate use of deadly force, not only denies them of their rights, and exercises an authority that the federal government nowhere legitimately has and has been deliberately denied, but also will deny numerous persons of their most fundamental right to life.

 

[AllanHampton]

The claim that the people "are not the government" is a red herring, as it is irrelevant to my points,

the claim that the people "are not the government". is a red herring. The people can't legislate (Article I, Section1, clause 1) and the People are not required to take an Oath to support the Constitution, SO the people are not government.

What other method did the Founders mention about correcting government Officials that the people could use?


And none of you points are written in the Constitution.

 

[AllanHampton]

Secession does not deprive people of rights. There is no individual "right" to be a member of the United States federal government.

Demanding that people remain members of the United States federal government, by inappropriate use of deadly force, not only denies them of their rights, and exercises an authority that the federal government nowhere legitimately has and has been deliberately denied, but also will deny numerous persons of their most fundamental right to life.

In a U.S. court who, or what entity, is the protector of Rights?

 

[haymarket]

Secession does not deprive people of rights. There is no individual "right" to be a member of the United States federal government.

Demanding that people remain members of the United States federal government, by inappropriate use of deadly force, not only denies them of their rights, and exercises an authority that the federal government nowhere legitimately has and has been deliberately denied, but also will deny numerous persons of their most fundamental right to life.

I am a citizen of the USA. Am I still a citizen of the USA with all rights and privileges accorded to every other citizen of the nation if my state secedes?