A Right To Secede?

[AllanHampton]

something i have no been able to get through to people............popular vote IS OK in republican government, as long as RIGHTS are not part of the vote.

Thats' correct, Rights are not part of the ballot box vote to elect a candidate to office in our form of government. As a matter of fact a political issue is not a part of electing a candidate. Constitutionally candidates can be elected to office to do only one thing, take the Oath of Office. Taking the Oath is required by the Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) and citizens vote cannot change the Constitution (Article V).

But who pays any attention to that g-d old piece of paper anymore, certainly not Voters, or Jurors.

 

[Trip]

I did not sate anywhere that factions equal the States. I was indeed talking about a faction wanting a State to secede as a plan to take over parts if not the entire country. Its that type of dishonesty the has made me laugh at you from time to time.

The Souths attempt such Sate secession was in fact a factitious endeavor. And every single secession movement in the US at this time isnt any different. Some are actually just a hold over from the Civil War, they are fringe radicals that will go nowhere ever.

I know what you stated. And I told you that your distortion of "faction" to being people wanting the freedoms guaranteed by our form of government, was not a "faction" at all, and is a distortion of Madison's application and intent. By my pointing this out to you, it was not any sort of "dishonesty", but rather honesty and accuracy, both of which you seem to lack.

In fact your lacking argument seems to lead you to now become a serial accuser of dishonesty, when there is not even any distortion of the truth on my part, but rather your own.

So then you retract your "can be no hesitation" argument? Up there where I bolded your statement tries to assert that you never suggested that the Federalist papers promote disunion but you did say so in that argument. "Jefferson most certainly WAS NOT "making it clear that in the union we stand and devided we fall", but on the contrary clearly indicates a choice between "two evils" and that there "can be no hesitation" involved in the choice, with that choice being dissolution of the Union or in other words, secession. "

So are you getting your guns ready to oust the Government? The last thing that I would be doing if I believed that our Government was hopelessly corrupted would be talking online. I would have already joined my neighbors in bearing arms, but where are all of those people right now? perhaps this conspiracy theory of yours isnt real?

Whyyyy would I retract any portion of my "can be no hesitation" argument, given the fact that it is exactly what Jefferson was saying, and the fact that those passages from Jefferson were not written by Jefferson in the Federalist Papers, but rather in a letter from Jefferson to William B. Giles, further supporting my statement that, " beyond the Federalist, those founders themselves recognized that the government might still become tyrannous..."?

In that letter to William B. Giles, there is no doubt that... , "Jefferson most certainly WAS NOT "making it clear that in the union we stand and devided we fall", but on the contrary clearly indicates a choice between "two evils" and that there "can be no hesitation" involved in the choice, with that choice being dissolution of the Union or in other words, secession. "

You're still not just a little wrong, but enormously wrong.

And the coalitions I have formed with neighbors are none of your business.

 

[Trip]

The problem is that a peaceful State secession isnt reality. You will never have the complete support of the people in one State that agrees that secession is a rational idea. Personally I would not sit idle and let that happen, nor sit back and expect the Federal Government to save the day. My neighbors and I would fight against the faction which instigated the attempted secession of our State. And even if the entire country was taken over by some lame as movement I would fight for the US Constitution, our flag, our country etc, not stand behind some corrupt factions usurpation of my State.

The seceded because they did not want to progress with the times. They didnt listen to the power of the people they wanted to force their own agenda. In the same sense as you do. You have a wild idea of the way things should be in your opinion. But the people dont agree with you. So you want to leave a door open for your own movements possible power grab. because you view the majority of Americans as dupes too stupid to make the right choices. Most likely in a Civil War we would be pointing our weapons at each other. my point is that while I disagree with some aspects of our type of Government I believe that it was designed well enough to meet the latest modern challenges that it is facing. And despite doomsayers claims we the people are still the main power in this country. That doesnt mean that there are not real dangers to our freedoms and liberties, but many of us intend to use the tools that the founders handed us in the form of a Republican Government.

THey don't need the support of every individual. It's not as if the form of government those seceding would be "Marxism" or "Communism", or a tyrannous democratic dictate, but rather the restoration of the Republican form of government indicated by the Constitution itself.


And in that Constitution, there is no such insertion anywhere within involving a function to "progress with the times." There is no Article or Amendment that indicates that the government may stray outside the Constitution for that alleged "progress", and in fact every limitation, and check, and balance, upon the government, is to prohibit the government from forcing tyrannous dictates upon the citizenry under the guise of "progress", or "kindness", or "modernism", or any other rationalization seeking to empower government, or a faction of fellow citizens, over other fellow citizens, and enslave them to their agenda, which is what is going on in this country at this time.

In fact if you had actually read that Federalist #10, which you previously cited in error, you would see that Madison is actually providing an apt and accurate description of Progressiveism/Marxism.

Madison nails this description immediately following his discussion of the violent deaths Democracies enjoy by describing:

Theoretic politicians <today's "elitist politicians"> , who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality <social justice> in their political rights <thereby fabricating rights to enslave>, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions <redistribution of wealth>, their opinions <political correctness>, and their passions <social engineering>.​

Here Madison is absolute prescient in his description of Marxism, decades before Marx ever put pen to paper, and your so-called "progress with the times" of today's Progressive movement, is nothing more than repackaged Marxism, an ideology that employs the factionalism born of mankind's less reputable traits of sloth, envy, and greed, in order to enslave mankind to his brother, in a shared misery under the direction of a tyrannous government.

Madison recognizes our constitutional republic as the cure for that factionalism, and describes that "progressive" mentality as, "destroying the liberty which is essential to [this country's] existence". In other words, it is enslaving one portion of man, to a few men, and doing so by tyrannous government dictate. When this country no longer guarantees liberty, and exists in name only, as is true now, then there is real and legitimate cause to secede.

Perhaps it is not that Madison was so "absolutely prescient" as the fact that there is absolutely nothing at all "progress[ing] with the times" about the current ideology. It is no coincidence that today's "Democratic" party is advocating such a corrupt scheme.

In fact our Constitution was intended to protect us from just such democracy, and specifically protect us from the application of just such corrupt and tyrannous schemes as the government is now intending to apply to us, by having transgressed well outside of the Constitutional authority.... hence the reason for secession.

There is no such "power grab" in what I and others promote, but rather a power denial of an illegitimate exercise of power specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and a restoration of our government and freedoms to what was intended.

*OUCH!*, you really walked into a wall this time. It's gonna leave a big mark! Perhaps next time you might actually consider understanding what sources you reference, before you reference them and argue their content.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

THey don't need the support of every individual. It's not as if the form of government those seceding would be "Marxism" or "Communism", or a tyrannous democratic dictate, but rather the restoration of the Republican form of government indicated by the Constitution itself.

Commie, Nazi whatever screwed up system it may be its not going to be American. I have a direct ancestor that was in the Constitutional convention and a long family history of patriotic Americans most of which served in the military, I am not going to accept some group of assholes whoever they be taking away any section of this land and assuming it as their own. And that is exactly what is going on when it comes to Sate secession, some group of assholes are taking the State for their own. You can believe whatever you want, but when push comes to shove I will join or start my own militia to honor and protect this country from those who wish to divide it up among themselves.

And in that Constitution, there is no such insertion anywhere within involving a function to "progress with the times." There is no Article or Amendment that indicates that the government may stray outside the Constitution for that alleged "progress", and in fact every limitation, and check, and balance, upon the government, is to prohibit the government from forcing tyrannous dictates upon the citizenry under the guise of "progress", or "kindness", or "modernism", or any other rationalization seeking to empower government, or a faction of fellow citizens, over other fellow citizens, and enslave them to their agenda, which is what is going on in this country at this time.

In fact if you had actually read that Federalist #10, which you previously cited in error, you would see that Madison is actually providing an apt and accurate description of Progressiveism/Marxism.

Madison nails this description immediately following his discussion of the violent deaths Democracies enjoy by describing:

Theoretic politicians <today's "elitist politicians"> , who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality <social justice> in their political rights <thereby fabricating rights to enslave>, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions <redistribution of wealth>, their opinions <political correctness>, and their passions <social engineering>.​

Here Madison is absolute prescient in his description of Marxism, decades before Marx ever put pen to paper, and your so-called "progress with the times" of today's Progressive movement, is nothing more than repackaged Marxism, an ideology that employs the factionalism born of mankind's less reputable traits of sloth, envy, and greed, in order to enslave mankind to his brother, in a shared misery under the direction of a tyrannous government.

Madison recognizes our constitutional republic as the cure for that factionalism, and describes that "progressive" mentality as, "destroying the liberty which is essential to [this country's] existence". In other words, it is enslaving one portion of man, to a few men, and doing so by tyrannous government dictate. When this country no longer guarantees liberty, and exists in name only, as is true now, then there is real and legitimate cause to secede.

Perhaps it is not that Madison was so "absolutely prescient" as the fact that there is absolutely nothing at all "progress[ing] with the times" about the current ideology. It is no coincidence that today's "Democratic" party is advocating such a corrupt scheme.

In fact our Constitution was intended to protect us from just such democracy, and specifically protect us from the application of just such corrupt and tyrannous schemes as the government is now intending to apply to us, by having transgressed well outside of the Constitutional authority.... hence the reason for secession.

There is no such "power grab" in what I and others promote, but rather a power denial of an illegitimate exercise of power specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and a restoration of our government and freedoms to what was intended.

*OUCH!*, you really walked into a wall this time. It's gonna leave a big mark! Perhaps next time you might actually consider understanding what sources you reference, before you reference them and argue their content.

bwhahaha you really went out there on that one. I did not at all say anything about "Progressive" I used the word "progress". Its absolutely comical that you tried to turn that into "Progressive" and you used up so much space chasing your strawman argument. The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level. Ending slavery was huge progress. The right of women to vote more huge progress. Other things like you dont need to own property to vote. And many other great things have happened since the Constitution was written and the founders intended that the Constitution would progress with the times while staying fundamentally the same. Which is how its been playing out. there are some black eyes though. The Southern Sates trying to break up the country for one and prohibition for another should never had happened. Todays prohibition on certain drugs. And many more bad things that need to immediately be fixed. Of course much of what the New Deal created needs to go and be replaced by a better system that addresses the pitfalls instead of creating problems. And I could go on for hours about whats wrong but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I know what you stated. And I told you that your distortion of "faction" to being people wanting the freedoms guaranteed by our form of government, was not a "faction" at all, and is a distortion of Madison's application and intent. By my pointing this out to you, it was not any sort of "dishonesty", but rather honesty and accuracy, both of which you seem to lack.

In fact your lacking argument seems to lead you to now become a serial accuser of dishonesty, when there is not even any distortion of the truth on my part, but rather your own.

Well thats funny you start out by being dishonest then try to assert that you are not being dishonest. Now that is true comedy. I did not distort the meaning of "faction" that was all you adding your strawman argument despite what I said. Give it up lying to my face isnt going to make me believe your lies.

Whyyyy would I retract any portion of my "can be no hesitation" argument, given the fact that it is exactly what Jefferson was saying, and the fact that those passages from Jefferson were not written by Jefferson in the Federalist Papers, but rather in a letter from Jefferson to William B. Giles, further supporting my statement that, " beyond the Federalist, those founders themselves recognized that the government might still become tyrannous..."?

In that letter to William B. Giles, there is no doubt that... , "Jefferson most certainly WAS NOT "making it clear that in the union we stand and devided we fall", but on the contrary clearly indicates a choice between "two evils" and that there "can be no hesitation" involved in the choice, with that choice being dissolution of the Union or in other words, secession. "

You're still not just a little wrong, but enormously wrong.

You simply tried to manipulate the mans words then tried using it as a strawman argument. I called you on it and now you are stuck trying to deny it. lol give it a rest and move on.

And the coalitions I have formed with neighbors are none of your business.

Why do you have something to hide? Or should I say nothing to hide since you are just one man with a keyboard on the internet talking ****? Lol you didnt even have to acknowledge that question, and surely if it were me I wouldnt have.

 

[Trip]

Commie, Nazi whatever screwed up system it may be its not going to be American. I have a direct ancestor that was in the Constitutional convention and a long family history of patriotic Americans most of which served in the military, I am not going to accept some group of assholes whoever they be taking away any section of this land and assuming it as their own. And that is exactly what is going on when it comes to Sate secession, some group of assholes are taking the State for their own. You can believe whatever you want, but when push comes to shove I will join or start my own militia to honor and protect this country from those who wish to divide it up among themselves.



bwhahaha you really went out there on that one. I did not at all say anything about "Progressive" I used the word "progress". Its absolutely comical that you tried to turn that into "Progressive" and you used up so much space chasing your strawman argument. The development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level. Ending slavery was huge progress. The right of women to vote more huge progress. Other things like you dont need to own property to vote. And many other great things have happened since the Constitution was written and the founders intended that the Constitution would progress with the times while staying fundamentally the same. Which is how its been playing out. there are some black eyes though. The Southern Sates trying to break up the country for one and prohibition for another should never had happened. Todays prohibition on certain drugs. And many more bad things that need to immediately be fixed. Of course much of what the New Deal created needs to go and be replaced by a better system that addresses the pitfalls instead of creating problems. And I could go on for hours about whats wrong but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.

I didnt say you used the word "progressive" and nothing I said necessitated you having done so.

The phrase you used "progress with the times" is exactly the same nonsense mentality and spin applied to Progressivism, and there was enormous irony that the Federalist paper you chose to reference, referenced just that ideology. There is no form of government on the face of the earth "more beneficial than and superior to" this form of government.

Not owning property to vote, only got people voting who directly want to award themselves others property... exactly what Madison was addressing with Federalist #10. The more you talk, the deeper you dig the hole in which you stand.

Furthermore the prohibition on drugs is something that is necessary, because of the detrimental effect upon society. However the progressive ideology is great at ignoring outcome, and are fine with having the populus ignorant and in a drug-induced stupor, and its no surprise that you support this as well.

Yes, social engineers are always able to go on for hours, as redesigning society in their image is always an expansive project, and needing absolute compliance of the populous.

Given this, it is no surprise that you would claim secession is illegal. I'm all in favor for you and others to be in that drug stupor when the fecal matter hits the rotating torsion device.

 

[Trip]

Well thats funny you start out by being dishonest then try to assert that you are not being dishonest. Now that is true comedy. I did not distort the meaning of "faction" that was all you adding your strawman argument despite what I said. Give it up lying to my face isnt going to make me believe your lies.

Your abject stupidity, or unabashed bias willing to distort Madison's words, does not constitute my own dishonesty.

Here is Madison's own explanation from Federalist #10 of what that "faction" involves:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."​

Here those factioning are "united .. by the common impulse" of government handouts, and the redistribution of others property, and this is "adversed to" the common rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution, and ALSO to the permanent form of government to which we are also guaranteed.

There is no "right to be in the union" as a member of a state, but there is a recognized guarantee to receive the rights detailed by the Constitution, as well as the right to expect these rights even preceding the Constitution, as these individual rights are recognized to be unalienable and innate to the individual.

Thus, "faction" does not in any way apply to secession.

You simply tried to manipulate the mans words then tried using it as a strawman argument. I called you on it and now you are stuck trying to deny it. lol give it a rest and move on.

Why do you have something to hide? Or should I say nothing to hide since you are just one man with a keyboard on the internet talking ****? Lol you didnt even have to acknowledge that question, and surely if it were me I wouldnt have.

I do not have to manipulate Madison's words at all, and only have to illuminate them.


I'm not hiding at all, and I'm not at all alone, nor would I act alone. You wouldn't have acknowledged the question because you are timid and compliant to whatever domineering power.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson

​

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Your abject stupidity, or unabashed bias willing to distort Madison's words, does not constitute my own dishonesty.

Here is Madison's own explanation from Federalist #10 of what that "faction" involves:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."​

Here those factioning are "united .. by the common impulse" of government handouts, and the redistribution of others property, and this is "adversed to" the common rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution, and ALSO to the permanent form of government to which we are also guaranteed.

There is no "right to be in the union" as a member of a state, but there is a recognized guarantee to receive the rights detailed by the Constitution, as well as the right to expect these rights even preceding the Constitution, as these individual rights are recognized to be unalienable and innate to the individual.

Thus, "faction" does not in any way apply to secession.




I do not have to manipulate Madison's words at all, and only have to illuminate them.


I'm not hiding at all, and I'm not at all alone, nor would I act alone. You wouldn't have acknowledged the question because you are timid and compliant to whatever domineering power.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson

​

:beatdeadhorse :doh

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I didnt say you used the word "progressive" and nothing I said necessitated you having done so.

The phrase you used "progress with the times" is exactly the same nonsense mentality and spin applied to Progressivism, and there was enormous irony that the Federalist paper you chose to reference, referenced just that ideology. There is no form of government on the face of the earth "more beneficial than and superior to" this form of government.

Not owning property to vote, only got people voting who directly want to award themselves others property... exactly what Madison was addressing with Federalist #10. The more you talk, the deeper you dig the hole in which you stand.

Furthermore the prohibition on drugs is something that is necessary, because of the detrimental effect upon society. However the progressive ideology is great at ignoring outcome, and are fine with having the populus ignorant and in a drug-induced stupor, and its no surprise that you support this as well.

Yes, social engineers are always able to go on for hours, as redesigning society in their image is always an expansive project, and needing absolute compliance of the populous.

Given this, it is no surprise that you would claim secession is illegal. I'm all in favor for you and others to be in that drug stupor when the fecal matter hits the rotating torsion device.

Damn i really do hate it when some one online thinks that they know all about me and even speaks for me and thinks that I should just go along with it. And all the while you ignore everything that I actually say and replace it with your version. I bet if I let you talk a little longer for me you will make me out to be a Marxist, of wait didnt you already do that once?

Like it or not reality does progress with the times. If it doesnt reality looks like Europe during the dark ages. I noticed that you ignored the other progress that I mentioned like slavery and womens right to vote. BTW I own my own house and have so for a couple decades but I still support the right of everyone to vote. I do not pass judgement on my fellow Americans.

And actually I do not support drug use, but I respect the peoples right to make their own decisions instead of having a nanny state dictate what liberties that the citizens partake in. if you support prohibitions then you have no argument against the Government dictating gun rights as well. Nor any other Authoritative actions that the government forces onto the people. That statement above that I bolded says it all. You are all talk but when it comes down to it you support the Government taking away rights of the people.

I am still laughing about me obviously not being a progressive and you confusing the use of the word progress with a damn ideology and you even turn around and say exactly what I accused you of and even say it(the second bolded item) "Progressive ideology" lol that is different from what I said. But i guess it makes no difference to you what I actually assert since you just make up crap for me instead.

BTW just to make you look the fool: Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prohibition
Most progressives, especially in rural areas, adopted the cause of prohibition.[35] They saw the saloon as political corruption incarnate, and bewailed the damage done to women and children. They believed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement.[36] Progressives achieved success first with state laws then with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919. The golden day did not dawn; enforcement was lax, especially in the cities where notorious criminal gangs, such as the Chicago gang of Al Capone made a crime spree based on illegal sales of liquor in speakeasies. The "experiment" (as President Hoover called it) also cost the treasury large sums of taxes and the 18th amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1933.[37]

So you support a concept of the ideology of Progressivism loool. :lamo What other Leftist ideals do you follow? Prohibition is actually social engineering Sherlock.

 

[Trip]

Damn i really do hate it when some one online thinks that they know all about me and even speaks for me and thinks that I should just go along with it. And all the while you ignore everything that I actually say and replace it with your version. I bet if I let you talk a little longer for me you will make me out to be a Marxist, of wait didnt you already do that once?

YOU are the one that chose to go on an wild rant on women voting, drugs, ownning property, in a discussion about the Constitution, or secession. It should be pointed out that none of that was demanded, or referenced, anywhere in the Constitution! Why? Because the Constitution only constructs the federal government. We didn't need an amendment to give women the vote, just as we didn't need an amendment that allowed people to vote without owning land, or to allow inter-racial marriage. All of this that actually added to the Constitution was progressive nonsense, nothing but politicians serving mass appeal. All of it was a function of society.

And I didn't need to pretend I knew anything "about you", much less "all about you"; you offered these things yourself, and I still addressed them only as "progress" to society, when even that progress is highly questionable, so quit your whining.

Like it or not reality does progress with the times. If it doesnt reality looks like Europe during the dark ages. I noticed that you ignored the other progress that I mentioned like slavery and womens right to vote. BTW I own my own house and have so for a couple decades but I still support the right of everyone to vote. I do not pass judgement on my fellow Americans.

And actually I do not support drug use, but I respect the peoples right to make their own decisions instead of having a nanny state dictate what liberties that the citizens partake in. if you support prohibitions then you have no argument against the Government dictating gun rights as well. Nor any other Authoritative actions that the government forces onto the people. That statement above that I bolded says it all. You are all talk but when it comes down to it you support the Government taking away rights of the people.

Reality does not progress with the times, reality stayes the same. Reality is not medieval feudalism which was an artificial social construct imposed to constrain individual freedom and enrich a limited few. It is quite a lot like the progressive ideology, which is nothing more than neo-feudalism, in which a few dictate the terms of existence to the many.

A people's right to make their own decisions, only goes so far as their own decisions do not harm others, or the society as a whole. Drug use does harm society as a whole. It's not just a random prohibition, but rather a prohibition for a specific reason. THis makes your reference to "dictating gun rights" no only errant, but nothing but a "progressive ideolog[ical]" outlook. It does "say it all" for you, when you ignore the very fundamental definitions and differences of things. THis is why "everyone getting to vote" is not an overriding ideology to this country, particularly when that vote involves the masses voting themselves the ability to confiscate rights and property of the few in service of their own gratification.

This is "faction", and this is the sort of faction that causes the violent deaths to Democracy that Madison talked about, what is occurring deliberately right now to take this country to its demise, and to institute a totalitarian statist form of government no longer guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms. And it this factionalism of Democracy is something that has never changed, no matter how much the times change. It's human nature, and is why Communism, and its little brother, Socialism, have always failed.

You didn't have to use the word "progressive", especially not when you utilized the Progressive "progress" argument that has been the placard of every single Marist/Socialist campaign to come down the pike, and then proceed with the exact same rational. A duck is a duck, no matter how it tries to remake itself, and the human nature upon which Madison made his arguments and this country is founded, does not change.

I am still laughing about me obviously not being a progressive and you confusing the use of the word progress with a damn ideology and you even turn around and say exactly what I accused you of and even say it(the second bolded item) "Progressive ideology" lol that is different from what I said. But i guess it makes no difference to you what I actually assert since you just make up crap for me instead.

Yes, you're obviously not a progressive. QUACK!

Prohibition
Most progressives, especially in rural areas, adopted the cause of prohibition.[35] They saw the saloon as political corruption incarnate, and bewailed the damage done to women and children. They believed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement.[36] Progressives achieved success first with state laws then with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919. The golden day did not dawn; enforcement was lax, especially in the cities where notorious criminal gangs, such as the Chicago gang of Al Capone made a crime spree based on illegal sales of liquor in speakeasies. The "experiment" (as President Hoover called it) also cost the treasury large sums of taxes and the 18th amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1933.[37]

So you support a concept of the ideology of Progressivism loool. :lamo What other Leftist ideals do you follow? Prohibition is actually social engineering Sherlock.

I don't support progressivism, and in fact in this thread I have recognized the prohibition of Alcohol by an Amendment to be entirely an overreach of Progressivism [1][2] You're talking to the choir here.

Evidently you like to "blur" things together, and ignore distinctions, as well as outcome. A superficial analysis can only lead to a superficial and flawed conclusion.

I have made the point that either the consumption of alcohol is a right, or it is not. Evidently Progressives thought that Alcohol consumption was a right, hence the need to alter the Constitution via amendment. However if it is a right, then no amendment would be sufficient to remove it, as Amendments do not remove rights, nor grant rights - and the Constitution is not for limiting the Citizens, but rather for limiting the government. An amendment was not only inappropriate, but was a violation of the structure and intent of the Constitution, when a federal law would have sufficed.

I don't support prohibition of alcohol. I do support the prohibition of recreational drug use, and not because I'm any sort of virgin, but because it is an open ended right that adversely affects society and totally blurs the line to ever-increasing personal and social harm. There is no limit to the harm that might be caused by varied drugs, particularly with modern pharmacology and chemistry continually expanding the "brave new world", hence the reason that pharmaceuticals are by prescription. It's a pretty straightforward definition. Yet alcohol has a limited alcohol content, and has strong constraints on other additives.

I know you libertine types don't like having boundaries drawn, but that's where I recognize a boundary, and why. Without such a recognized boundary, there is no limit to the individual and social harm done by drugs.

 

[Master PO]

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 45

Categories: Federalism

Date: January 26, 1788

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.


James Madison Federalist Paper XIV

Categories: Constitutionalism, Federal Government, Federalism

Date: November 30, 1787

In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 46

Categories: Federalism

Date: January 29, 1788

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm . . . But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.

 

[Federalist]

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 46

Categories: Federalism

Date: January 29, 1788

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm . . . But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.

Federalist 46 is very interesting because it is essentially saying that the states are the final arbiters of what actions of the federal government are legitimate. It explains how states ought to react to unwarranted acts of the federal government, and the prescribed remedy is essentially nullification and interposition.

 

[Master PO]

James Iredell

Aug. 1788
1. Each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the general government; nor shall the said Congress, nor any department of the said government, exercise any act of authority over any individual in any of the said states, but such as can be justified under some power particularly given in this Constitution; but the said Constitution shall be considered at all times a solemn instrument, defining the extent of their authority, and the limits of which they cannot rightfully in any instance exceed.

 

[Trip]

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 45

Categories: Federalism

Date: January 26, 1788

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.


James Madison Federalist Paper XIV

Categories: Constitutionalism, Federal Government, Federalism

Date: November 30, 1787

In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 46

Categories: Federalism

Date: January 29, 1788

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm . . . But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.

I'm guessing this is your response to my comments about recreational drug use being prohibited by the federal government?

This is a decent argument, and valid points, however when drug use is is left to the states, as it is indeed not a specific power of the federal government to prohibit <unless by interstate commerce, or some such application>, then some states will outlaw drug use and possession, and other states will not. Thereby putting the individual in the position of extreme hazard of having to keep track of where what is illegal, and to what degree.

Generally, even from superficial examination, this might be an obstacle, and inconvenience, but what about the hypothetical situation of a plane having a forced landing in an unintended destination state, perhaps due to weather or mechanical difficulties? Then the individual is suddenly subject to that state's laws.

And such an interpretation with regard to drugs, not only brings into question possession of things like Marijuana, but also more obscure pharmaceutical prescription drugs, where types of drugs, or certain amounts of drugs, will vary entirely in their regulation and prohibition from state to state. And by such terms, this would draw into question the already questionable federal certifications of safety and efficacy by the FDA, with states having their own judgements as to what is legit.

The result would be to put people into an entire limbo of uncertainty resulting in a de facto social 'lock-down' for travel, as a result of anything, and virtually everything, they might have in their possession, even a can of hairspray that might have a prohibited chemical propellant, or the sort of coolant they have in their vehicle, and a whole array of unanticipated considerations.

The result would not be more liberty, but considerably less liberty, with this liberty ever decreasing, along with continual uncertainty and fear.

[California is a perfect example of this, with its own state legislation resulting in a whole array of things legislated that result in California having to be treated entirely differently, ranging from petroleum grades and compositions, to the right to grow marijuana, and many other things. ]

 

[Master PO]

I'm guessing this is your response to my comments about recreational drug use being prohibited by the federal government?

This is a decent argument, and valid points, however when drug use is is left to the states, as it is not specifically a power of the federal government to prohibit <unless by interstate commerce, or some such application>, then some states will outlaw drug use and possession, and other states will not. Thereby putting the individual in the position of extreme hazard in leaving of having to keep track of where what is illegal, and to what degree.

Generally, even from superficial examination, this might be an obstacle, and inconvenience, but what about the hypothetical situation of a plane having a forced landing in an untended destination state, perhaps due to weather or mechanical difficulties? Then the individual is suddenly subject to that state's laws.

And such an interpretation with regard to drugs, not only brings into question possession of things like Marijuana, but also more obscure pharmaceutical prescription drugs, where types of drugs, or certain amounts of drugs will vary entirely in their regulation and prohibition from state to state. And by such terms, this would draw into question the already questionable federal certifications of safety and efficacy by the FDA, with states having their own judgements as to what is legit.

The result would be to put people into an entire limbo of uncertainty resulting in a de facto social 'lock-down' for travel, as a result of anything, and virtually everything, they might have in their possession, even a can of hairspray that might have a prohibited chemical, or the sort of coolant they have in their vehicle, and a whole array of unanticipated conditions.

The result would not be more liberty, but considerably less liberty, along with continual uncertainty and fear.

no I was not referencing you at all.

I just posted interesting things from the founders

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

YOU are the one that chose to go on an wild rant on women voting, drugs, ownning property, in a discussion about the Constitution, or secession. It should be pointed out that none of that was demanded, or referenced, anywhere in the Constitution! Why? Because the Constitution only constructs the federal government. We didn't need an amendment to give women the vote, just as we didn't need an amendment that allowed people to vote without owning land, or to allow inter-racial marriage. All of this that actually added to the Constitution was progressive nonsense, nothing but politicians serving mass appeal. All of it was a function of society.

Indeed I get to choose what I talk about, nice of you to realize that fact.

Perhaps you have heard of the Bill of Rights? Most of the Bill of Rights secures individual natural rights. There was concern by the founders that without securing those natural rights that the Government would turn into a tyranny. So they made the first 10 Amendments. Which was done by the founders and shows that the US Constitution can and has been legally Amended. The Bill of Rights is what we call progress. The Constitution was designed to allow progress. The Constitution was not designed as a stagnate stick in the mud attempt to return to the dark ages where any change was frowned on or banned outright.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I do not consider voting rights to be "progressive nonsense"

And I didn't need to pretend I knew anything "about you", much less "all about you"; you offered these things yourself, and I still addressed them only as "progress" to society, when even that progress is highly questionable, so quit your whining.

bwhahaa Im not whining I just like to frame the conversation in reality. But mostly I find you entertainingly funny.

Reality does not progress with the times, reality stayes the same. Reality is not medieval feudalism which was an artificial social construct imposed to constrain individual freedom and enrich a limited few. It is quite a lot like the progressive ideology, which is nothing more than neo-feudalism, in which a few dictate the terms of existence to the many.

A people's right to make their own decisions, only goes so far as their own decisions do not harm others, or the society as a whole. Drug use does harm society as a whole. It's not just a random prohibition, but rather a prohibition for a specific reason. THis makes your reference to "dictating gun rights" no only errant, but nothing but a "progressive ideolog[ical]" outlook. It does "say it all" for you, when you ignore the very fundamental definitions and differences of things. THis is why "everyone getting to vote" is not an overriding ideology to this country, particularly when that vote involves the masses voting themselves the ability to confiscate rights and property of the few in service of their own gratification.

This is "faction", and this is the sort of faction that causes the violent deaths to Democracy that Madison talked about, what is occurring deliberately right now to take this country to its demise, and to institute a totalitarian statist form of government no longer guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms. And it this factionalism of Democracy is something that has never changed, no matter how much the times change. It's human nature, and is why Communism, and its little brother, Socialism, have always failed.

You didn't have to use the word "progressive", especially not when you utilized the Progressive "progress" argument that has been the placard of every single Marist/Socialist campaign to come down the pike, and then proceed with the exact same rational. A duck is a duck, no matter how it tries to remake itself, and the human nature upon which Madison made his arguments and this country is founded, does not change.



Yes, you're obviously not a progressive. QUACK!

Abolishing slavery is progress, or do you not agree?

Drug use does harm society as a whole. Sounds a lot like this: "I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown." Obama About a Month after the Newtown massacre.

You are making the exact same argument that progressives make about gun control as you use for drug control.

I guess you missed that part where I claimed that progress does not change the fundamental base of the Constitution? Im guessing that you heard the word progress and your mind clouded up and couldnt get past that point.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.
Ronald Reagan

I don't support progressivism, and in fact in this thread I have recognized the prohibition of Alcohol by an Amendment to be entirely an overreach of Progressivism [1][2] You're talking to the choir here.

Evidently you like to "blur" things together, and ignore distinctions, as well as outcome. A superficial analysis can only lead to a superficial and flawed conclusion.

lol so then you understand where I was coming from now that I put you in the hot seat? Probably not huh? You probably didnt even notice why I was implying that you were a progressive did you? I thought that you would put 2 and 2 together and realize that you were irrationally assigning me to progressive ideology when Im not anywhere near it. But I guess you didnt figure that out...

I have made the point that either the consumption of alcohol is a right, or it is not. Evidently Progressives thought that Alcohol consumption was a right, hence the need to alter the Constitution via amendment. However if it is a right, then no amendment would be sufficient to remove it, as Amendments do not remove rights, nor grant rights - and the Constitution is not for limiting the Citizens, but rather for limiting the government. An amendment was not only inappropriate, but was a violation of the structure and intent of the Constitution, when a federal law would have sufficed.

I don't support prohibition of alcohol. I do support the prohibition of recreational drug use, and not because I'm any sort of virgin, but because it is an open ended right that adversely affects society and totally blurs the line to ever-increasing personal and social harm. There is no limit to the harm that might be caused by varied drugs, particularly with modern pharmacology and chemistry continually expanding the "brave new world", hence the reason that pharmaceuticals are by prescription. It's a pretty straightforward definition. Yet alcohol has a limited alcohol content, and has strong constraints on other additives.

Prohibition is a limitation of liberties no matter what is being prohibited. Face it you support Government restriction on liberties and freedoms, lol get over it.

BTW plenty of people have died as a direct result of consuming alcohol. How many people can be attributed to dying as a direct result of marijuana? To be clear I am talking about the two drugs themselves not any other drug that a person may have been on at the same time. Alcohol has directly killed perhaps of people by overdose, THC- well find me one case that THC was the factor that killed the user?


Oh and you are cracking me up accusing me of asserting Leftist crap while espousing "social harm". lol you sound more and more like a Socialist each post. :lamo

I know you libertine types don't like having boundaries drawn, but that's where I recognize a boundary, and why. Without such a recognized boundary, there is no limit to the individual and social harm done by drugs.

Now you are calling me a Libertine? Now you are going to judge me because of your religion?

Is your religious belief the actual root of your argument? Please say it is I would enjoy that direction. But back to secession to be sure you havent made your case at all. You have only expressed your opinions on secession void of any real value.

 

[Trip]

Re: A Right To Secede?

Indeed I get to choose what I talk about, nice of you to realize that fact.

Perhaps you have heard of the Bill of Rights? Most of the Bill of Rights secures individual natural rights. There was concern by the founders that without securing those natural rights that the Government would turn into a tyranny. So they made the first 10 Amendments. Which was done by the founders and shows that the US Constitution can and has been legally Amended. The Bill of Rights is what we call progress. The Constitution was designed to allow progress. The Constitution was not designed as a stagnate stick in the mud attempt to return to the dark ages where any change was frowned on or banned outright.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I do not consider voting rights to be "progressive nonsense"

'

Nice, pointless, meandering rant, but none of that is relevant to my commentary. This has nothing to do with how to amend the Constitution, nor anything to do with your stereotypical understanding of the "dark ages", nor civil rights themselves. I'm actually saddened that I have to detail this for you thoroughly.

The reason we did not need to amend the Constitution, to give women the vote, ....
....is the same reason we did not need to amend the constitution to allow those not owning land to vote, ,,,
... which is the same reason we did not need to amend the Constitution to allow inter-racial marriage.,....

... and it's the same reason we did not need a 13th Amendment, certainly did not need a corruption like the 14th Amendment,

And this is because the Constitution never denied this things, nor instituted slavery, in any way.

While the first ten Amendments to the Constitution may have been "progress", these latter amendments were the opposite of progress, they were "Congress", or the government empowering itself with an entirely unsupported power of policing rights, and awarding rights.

bwhahaa Im not whining I just like to frame the conversation in reality. But mostly I find you entertainingly funny.

You're whining. You put stuff out there about yourself repeatedly in posts, and even now call it "reality" but you get your panties all in a wad when I call that 'reality' for what it is. The problem is you're too damn young and wet behind the ears to know that the propagandist "reality" you've swallowed, is what this country is choking on, and is entirely antithetical to this country's principles.

Abolishing slavery is progress, or do you not agree?

Generally the absence of slavery is a good thing, yes. However using that abolishment of slavery as an excuse for the further extension of heavy-handed preferential government dictate, which costs 3/4 of a million lives of Americans, and profoundly has changed the nature of the relationship between government and citizens, is not a good thing at all. Slavery was dying out naturally, but then, as now, the north and federal government were so conceited in their dictate of society, industrial vs agricultural, that they did not care about the violation of the constitution, or the mass of Americans killed in their self-righteous dictate.

Drug use does harm society as a whole. Sounds a lot like this: "I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown." Obama About a Month after the Newtown massacre.

You are making the exact same argument that progressives make about gun control as you use for drug control.

If you're going to make such an emphatic and thoroughly wrong statement that drug use does not harm society as a whole, then there's no point in any discussion with that level of ignorance. The documentation of harm done to society is thoroughly established over decades and by wide and diverse sociological and psychological studies in various journals. While it does not always result in direct harm of car crashes or robbing a store, it does lead to collapse of the moral fiber of society, and severely undermine the family on all levels, in ways that extend from one generation to the next.

For you to equate this with with guns only shows the superficial nature of your own 'analysis', and why your results are constantly falling short.

I guess you missed that part where I claimed that progress does not change the fundamental base of the Constitution? Im guessing that you heard the word progress and your mind clouded up and couldnt get past that point.

I guess you missed the part where I and Madison both documented how the push for 'progress' by theoretical poticians invariably results in an undermining of liberty, and the thorough disregard we see for the Constitution today.

lol so then you understand where I was coming from now that I put you in the hot seat? Probably not huh? You probably didnt even notice why I was implying that you were a progressive did you? I thought that you would put 2 and 2 together and realize that you were irrationally assigning me to progressive ideology when Im not anywhere near it. But I guess you didnt figure that out...

No, actually what I saw was you pulling the dishonest tactic of accusing the other of what you're doing, and what you've already been accused of. That may have worked in the playground, but I don't think I was ever impressed with it way back then either.

Prohibition is a limitation of liberties no matter what is being prohibited. Face it you support Government restriction on liberties and freedoms, lol get over it.

No, Mister Libertine, there are no liberties, nor rights, that extend to irresponsible conduct, particularly when it harms others and society overall. That's nothing like what the Founders supported.

BTW plenty of people have died as a direct result of consuming alcohol. How many people can be attributed to dying as a direct result of marijuana? To be clear I am talking about the two drugs themselves not any other drug that a person may have been on at the same time. Alcohol has directly killed perhaps of people by overdose, THC- well find me one case that THC was the factor that killed the user?

You're entitled to kill yourself, just not harm society or others, and I fight for your right to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Now you are calling me a Libertine? Now you are going to judge me because of your religion?

Is your religious belief the actual root of your argument? Please say it is I would enjoy that direction. But back to secession to be sure you havent made your case at all. You have only expressed your opinions on secession void of any real value.

Religion has never been the source of any of my arguments. I don't have a religion. What I am is the thing from deepest shadows of hell that your mother warned you about with quivering lower lip as a child, and causes you to release your bowels realizing she was telling you the truth. But it's nice to see what you think of religion, but it is not as if you didn't telegraph it already with your libertine absence of morality, and disregard for end result.

 

[Master PO]

Re: A Right To Secede?

'

Nice, pointless, meandering rant, but none of that is relevant to my commentary. This has nothing to do with how to amend the Constitution, nor anything to do with your stereotypical understanding of the "dark ages", nor civil rights themselves. I'm actually saddened that I have to detail this for you thoroughly.

The reason we did not need to amend the Constitution, to give women the vote, ....
....is the same reason we did not need to amend the constitution to allow those not owning land to vote, ,,,
... which is the same reason we did not need to amend the Constitution to allow inter-racial marriage.,....

... and it's the same reason we did not need a 13th Amendment, certainly did not need a corruption like the 14th Amendment,

And this is because the Constitution never denied this things, nor instituted slavery, in any way.

While the first ten Amendments to the Constitution may have been "progress", these latter amendments were the opposite of progress, they were "Congress", or the government empowering itself with an entirely unsupported power of policing rights, and awarding rights.





You're whining. You put stuff out there about yourself repeatedly in posts, and even now call it "reality" but you get your panties all in a wad when I call that 'reality' for what it is. The problem is you're too damn young and wet behind the ears to know that the propagandist "reality" you've swallowed, is what this country is choking on, and is entirely antithetical to this country's principles.



Generally the absence of slavery is a good thing, yes. However using that abolishment of slavery as an excuse for the further extension of heavy-handed preferential government dictate, which costs 3/4 of a million lives of Americans, and profoundly has changed the nature of the relationship between government and citizens, is not a good thing at all. Slavery was dying out naturally, but then, as now, the north and federal government were so conceited in their dictate of society, industrial vs agricultural, that they did not care about the violation of the constitution, or the mass of Americans killed in their self-righteous dictate.





If you're going to make such an emphatic and thoroughly wrong statement that drug use does not harm society as a whole, then there's no point in any discussion with that level of ignorance. The documentation of harm done to society is thoroughly established over decades and by wide and diverse sociological and psychological studies in various journals. While it does not always result in direct harm of car crashes or robbing a store, it does lead to collapse of the moral fiber of society, and severely undermine the family on all levels, in ways that extend from one generation to the next.

For you to equate this with with guns only shows the superficial nature of your own 'analysis', and why your results are constantly falling short.




I guess you missed the part where I and Madison both documented how the push for 'progress' by theoretical poticians invariably results in an undermining of liberty, and the thorough disregard we see for the Constitution today.






No, actually what I saw was you pulling the dishonest tactic of accusing the other of what you're doing, and what you've already been accused of. That may have worked in the playground, but I don't think I was ever impressed with it way back then either.




No, Mister Libertine, there are no liberties, nor rights, that extend to irresponsible conduct, particularly when it harms others and society overall. That's nothing like what the Founders supported.




You're entitled to kill yourself, just not harm society or others, and I fight for your right to do so at the earliest opportunity.




Religion has never been the source of any of my arguments. I don't have a religion. What I am is the thing from deepest shadows of hell that your mother warned you about with quivering lower lip as a child, and causes you to release your bowels realizing she was telling you the truth. But it's nice to see what you think of religion, but it is not as if you didn't telegraph it already with your libertine absence of morality, and disregard for end result.

i am going to weigh in on the drug issue, as a libertarian, i feel its a state issue myself, however some see it as a personal issue, and i can understand that position too.

however if a person uses his or her own liberty to take drugs, then they must bare the full responsibility for using that liberty if it is in a destructive matter, society should never have to pay the bills for those who misuse their liberty.

 

[Trip]

i am going to weigh in on the drug issue, as a libertarian, i feel its a state issue myself, however some see it as a personal issue, and i can understand that position too.

however if a person uses his or her own liberty to take drugs, then they must bare the full responsibility for using that liberty if it is in a destructive matter, society should never have to pay the bills for those who misuse their liberty.

When I realized that a person does not bear the responsibility for using drugs, was when I ceased to embrace the ideal of libertarianism. There is enormous damage to society, families, friendships and human interactions, that is not quantifiable and un-remedied beyond the immediate destruction around the person themselves.

This nation's founders never embraced that sort of libertarian ideal, but rather recognized that each freedom has a commensurate obligation. Those acts which are fundamentally irresponsible have no business being counted as liberties. While these recognitions do appear in the founder's writings, they are not a part of the Constitution's philosophy, because such is irrelevant to the formation of the government monolith.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: A Right To Secede?

'

Nice, pointless, meandering rant, but none of that is relevant to my commentary. This has nothing to do with how to amend the Constitution, nor anything to do with your stereotypical understanding of the "dark ages", nor civil rights themselves. I'm actually saddened that I have to detail this for you thoroughly.

The reason we did not need to amend the Constitution, to give women the vote, ....
....is the same reason we did not need to amend the constitution to allow those not owning land to vote, ,,,
... which is the same reason we did not need to amend the Constitution to allow inter-racial marriage.,....

... and it's the same reason we did not need a 13th Amendment, certainly did not need a corruption like the 14th Amendment,

And this is because the Constitution never denied this things, nor instituted slavery, in any way.

While the first ten Amendments to the Constitution may have been "progress", these latter amendments were the opposite of progress, they were "Congress", or the government empowering itself with an entirely unsupported power of policing rights, and awarding rights.

No the US COnstitution did not institute slavery (which I have already stated more than once) But by adding the 13th Amendment the US Constitution numerated that slavery and involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, the same with voting rights. Its the law of the land. The states must obey the law of the land even if they disagree. That is how fundamental laws work.

You're whining. You put stuff out there about yourself repeatedly in posts, and even now call it "reality" but you get your panties all in a wad when I call that 'reality' for what it is. The problem is you're too damn young and wet behind the ears to know that the propagandist "reality" you've swallowed, is what this country is choking on, and is entirely antithetical to this country's principles.

Lol too damn young, thanx :rock

Generally the absence of slavery is a good thing, yes. However using that abolishment of slavery as an excuse for the further extension of heavy-handed preferential government dictate, which costs 3/4 of a million lives of Americans, and profoundly has changed the nature of the relationship between government and citizens, is not a good thing at all. Slavery was dying out naturally, but then, as now, the north and federal government were so conceited in their dictate of society, industrial vs agricultural, that they did not care about the violation of the constitution, or the mass of Americans killed in their self-righteous dictate.

Thats like saying that the American Revolution was not worth the lives of the British and the Colonists.

It was worth every single life lost if thats what it took to end slavery. How many slaves died while in captivity? Slavery is about as anti freedom and liberty as you can get, its evil vile and disgusting. So was the treatment of women as personal property of men.

If you're going to make such an emphatic and thoroughly wrong statement that drug use does not harm society as a whole, then there's no point in any discussion with that level of ignorance. The documentation of harm done to society is thoroughly established over decades and by wide and diverse sociological and psychological studies in various journals. While it does not always result in direct harm of car crashes or robbing a store, it does lead to collapse of the moral fiber of society, and severely undermine the family on all levels, in ways that extend from one generation to the next.

For you to equate this with with guns only shows the superficial nature of your own 'analysis', and why your results are constantly falling short.

Liberty is not defined by religion. You can take your moral police crap and set sail for mother England and the King that the founders despised.

I guess you missed the part where I and Madison both documented how the push for 'progress' by theoretical poticians invariably results in an undermining of liberty, and the thorough disregard we see for the Constitution today.

Dont fear progress, it isnt a ideology.

No, actually what I saw was you pulling the dishonest tactic of accusing the other of what you're doing, and what you've already been accused of. That may have worked in the playground, but I don't think I was ever impressed with it way back then either.

Lol thats comical really :lamo since it was all you.

No, Mister Libertine, there are no liberties, nor rights, that extend to irresponsible conduct, particularly when it harms others and society overall. That's nothing like what the Founders supported.

Again accusing me of having no morals? Make whatever excuse you want for supporting a nanny state but dont expect me to support you. Nanny states just are not my thing.

You're entitled to kill yourself, just not harm society or others, and I fight for your right to do so at the earliest opportunity.

lol Now you want me to die? Wow what happened to your morals? This is just a conversation you dont actually have anything invested here. Why all of the emotions? Getting to a cantankerous old guy these days? BTW what do you consider young?

I had a very good friend of mine that died a 10 years ago (he was in his 80's) tell me that everyone is young until they turn 70. Because at 70 you cant deny that you are old. So by his standard I am young. He was also the best damn shot at the shooting range even though he could hardly see. Hell I couldnt even find the damn targets the he was hitting until he hit them without binoculars.

Religion has never been the source of any of my arguments. I don't have a religion. What I am is the thing from deepest shadows of hell that your mother warned you about with quivering lower lip as a child, and causes you to release your bowels realizing she was telling you the truth. But it's nice to see what you think of religion, but it is not as if you didn't telegraph it already with your libertine absence of morality, and disregard for end result.

Well that pretty much sums up your argument here now doesnt it? I wonder why exactly you chose to type that sentence? Am I supposed to tremble now? Or were you making a joke? I hope you are not serious because damn that would make you silly as **** old dude. You going to hunt me down and get me with your cane?

I need some popcorn so I can enjoy you and have munchies

BTW you did nothing to prove any of your claims once again. lol you sound like a poe, not a very good one though, try harder!

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

When I realized that a person does not bear the responsibility for using drugs, was when I ceased to embrace the ideal of libertarianism. There is enormous damage to society, families, friendships and human interactions, that is not quantifiable and un-remedied beyond the immediate destruction around the person themselves.

This nation's founders never embraced that sort of libertarian ideal, but rather recognized that each freedom has a commensurate obligation. Those acts which are fundamentally irresponsible have no business being counted as liberties. While these recognitions do appear in the founder's writings, they are not a part of the Constitution's philosophy, because such is irrelevant to the formation of the government monolith.

lol yes its all about collective social good :sarcasticclap

in case you missed that I was being sarcastic. But thats the irony of Conservatism in America that its more like Socialism than anything else. Everything is about social standards and social morals the individual really has no place in a Conservative system. But thats how they run churches.

 

[Trip]

Generally the absence of slavery is a good thing, yes. However using that abolishment of slavery as an excuse for the further extension of heavy-handed preferential government dictate, which costs 3/4 of a million lives of Americans, and profoundly has changed the nature of the relationship between government and citizens, is not a good thing at all. Slavery was dying out naturally, but then, as now, the north and federal government were so conceited in their dictate of society, industrial vs agricultural, that they did not care about the violation of the constitution, or the mass of Americans killed in their self-righteous dictate.

Thats like saying that the American Revolution was not worth the lives of the British and the Colonists.

It was worth every single life lost if thats what it took to end slavery. How many slaves died while in captivity? Slavery is about as anti freedom and liberty as you can get, its evil vile and disgusting. So was the treatment of women as personal property of men.

No, it's not like saying that about the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was about a decidedly different form of government, and for everyone living on this land being able to benefit from freedom, and that was the only way to go.

No, it was not worth every single life it took to end slavery, as there were other ways to do it, but the federal government forcing tyrannous government dictate on top of the biased trade tariff dictates it had been enforcing for decades, was not the way to go. Slavery was a fact of the times, and Americans did not create it, nor did Americans themselves put those original slaves into bondage.

If you're going to make such an emphatic and thoroughly wrong statement that drug use does not harm society as a whole, then there's no point in any discussion with that level of ignorance. The documentation of harm done to society is thoroughly established over decades and by wide and diverse sociological and psychological studies in various journals. While it does not always result in direct harm of car crashes or robbing a store, it does lead to collapse of the moral fiber of society, and severely undermine the family on all levels, in ways that extend from one generation to the next.

Liberty is not defined by religion. You can take your moral police crap and set sail for mother England and the King that the founders despised.

Valid liberty is defined by outcome and that necessitates a moral perspective. Morality has nothing to do with relgion, except some adopt a convenient internal morality that changes as is convenient, as opposed to the set, external morality where one does not get to make the rules on the fly.

You have a real bugaboo against morality and religion, doncha. And it's not just a passive, accidental thing either, but active and very deliberate.

This is the blindside shared by both Libertarians and Progressives -- an utter disregard for outcome, and morality itself. It is how 750,000 Americans can be killed in the most brutal fashions possible, but they think nothing of it, and it is how they can impose their ideology, and deconstruction of this country on others, and not think a thing of it.

And it is the blindside of every arrogant governmental regime in mankind's history that caused horrific results in mass genocide.

Dont fear progress, it isnt a ideology.

Your progress is not progress; it's propaganda, and failure to see that is nothing but blind ideology.

Again accusing me of having no morals? Make whatever excuse you want for supporting a nanny state but dont expect me to support you. Nanny states just are not my thing.

You just declared up above that you have disdain for morals, and then proceeded to blame morals on religion.

lol Now you want me to die? Wow what happened to your morals? This is just a conversation you dont actually have anything invested here. Why all of the emotions? Getting to a cantankerous old guy these days? BTW what do you consider young?

I said nothing of my wants. I said it's up to you.

Religion has never been the source of any of my arguments. I don't have a religion. What I am is the thing from deepest shadows of hell that your mother warned you about with quivering lower lip as a child, and causes you to release your bowels realizing she was telling you the truth. But it's nice to see what you think of religion, but it is not as if you didn't telegraph it already with your libertine absence of morality, and disregard for end result.

Well that pretty much sums up your argument here now doesnt it? I wonder why exactly you chose to type that sentence? Am I supposed to tremble now? Or were you making a joke? I hope you are not serious because damn that would make you silly as **** old dude. You going to hunt me down and get me with your cane?

You supposed on your own, that I was religious because I referenced mortality, taking the conversation from direct reference of what is said in exchange, to personalization by supposition, which is a dishonest tactic, but one showing your attitude about morality, and religion. You've also now presumed my age. The only thing you need to suppose on your own is what I said, or nothing at all. Btw, this "old dude" can hit a target at well over 1,200 yds, among other things. I'm just not a dumbass punk.

BTW you did nothing to prove any of your claims once again. lol you sound like a poe, not a very good one though, try harder!

What "claims" would I need to prove?

 

[Trip]

lol yes its all about collective social good :sarcasticclap

in case you missed that I was being sarcastic. But thats the irony of Conservatism in America that its more like Socialism than anything else. Everything is about social standards and social morals the individual really has no place in a Conservative system. But thats how they run churches.

I said nothing about "collective" social good, but rather society. Individuals pursuing their own 'good', achieving their best, is to the benefit of society.

This is no more about sacrificing individuality for the collective, than it is about elevating what is nothing but selfish destructive behaviors to a "right". It is no matter of coincidence that all of the rights recognized in the Constitution, not only benefit the individual, but their promotion also benefits society as a whole.

There is nothing involving collectivism about this, and certainly not socialism.

The individual has every place in a conservative system and ideology, but an unhealthy individual promoting unhealthy, destructive behaviors, is no more a right today, than it was at our nation's founding.

Unfortunately today's Libertarian ideology tries to dishonestly promote itself as the "original conservatism" of this country, when it is nothing of the sort, ignores the fundamental morality and consideration of outcome embraced by the founders, but rather is only contemporary Libertine self-indulgence, absent moral principles, with total disregard of outcome, and every bit as much of a threat to this society as Progressive social dictate, and Ron Paul's ignorant idealized foreign policy that considers Iran just misunderstood, and only wanting to be welcomed with open arms into the nuclear community.

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
~ Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779


"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
~ Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775


"Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue."
~ John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776

"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."
~ Richard Henry Lee, letter to Colonel Martin Pickett, March 5, 1786

"Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society. In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage."
~ Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 1794

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
~ original The Papers of John Adams, Taylor, ed., vol. 1

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query 19, 1781

​

 

[AllanHampton]

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
~ Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779


"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
~ Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775


"Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue."
~ John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776

"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."
~ Richard Henry Lee, letter to Colonel Martin Pickett, March 5, 1786

"Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society. In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage."
~ Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, 1794

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
~ original The Papers of John Adams, Taylor, ed., vol. 1

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution."
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia Query 19, 1781

[/INDENT]

Yes, those quotes by the people that wrote, or had a hand in writing, the Constitution are all correct. Recon secession will cure the manners and spirit of the people and thereby preserve the republic in vigor?

 

[Trip]

Yes, those quotes by the people that wrote, or had a hand in writing, the Constitution are all correct. Recon secession will cure the manners and spirit of the people and thereby preserve the republic in vigor?

You're keying off the last quote.

That quotation deals with the preservation of the "republic in vigor", and not in name only. Compulsory adherence to the Republic only serves establish the degeneracy of the manners and spirit of the people, eating away at the heart of the laws and Constitution.

That compulsory adherence will serve to validate and institutionalize the corruption, ensuring only further degeneracy, something that no election, nor series of elections, can remedy.

And that is our problem today.