Are they different than KY assholes? In my experience, KY has a much higher percentage in that category.****'em one less state filled with assholes to worry about.
... when an individual expatriates for a substantial tax purpose—as judged by the Internal Revenue Service—that individual will be subject to a 30% capital gains tax on future investment gains. ... if the IRS finds that avoidance of taxes was a substantial purpose of expatriation, the individual who renounced citizenship will be barred from any type of re-entry into the United States.
We see it differently.
The Founders knew darn well that they needed a broader back home support for ratification and wisely mandated CONVENTIONS OF THE PEOPLE to achieve that goal.
Too many folks on the right talk about STATES like they are some walking, talking. breathing entity that exists apart distinct and different than the real flesh and blood people who actually are the states.
It is telling that it is simply assumed that any movement toward self-rule will immediately met by invasion and conquest. It sort of dispels any fantasies that self-rule is a meaningful value in the minds of the American people. What we all seem to accept is "other-rule", which asserts, for instance, that the people of 49 states have some sort of divine right to rule over the 50th state. For the life of me, I just can't figure out why or how they believe this.
The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?
As far as I know, Texas has an exclusive right to succeed, it's negotiated before they joined the US. Right?
This is purely an urban legend.
Texas did get the unique right to break into as many as five states. This is because the invasion of Texas (often falsely claimed to be an independence movement) intended the state to be seized for more US slave states.
Somerville;1060514289The [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html" said:majority decision[/URL] as written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase had the following:
This is purely an urban legend.
Texas did get the unique right to break into as many as five states. This is because the invasion of Texas (often falsely claimed to be an independence movement) intended the state to be seized for more US slave states.
It seem to me that if a state does not with to be a member of a federation but is forcibly prevented from exiting, then it is being ruled by the other member states, whether or not it gets to exercise its minority vote.It isn't "ruling over". If I recall, Texas has representation.
The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?
Another issue is that people worry about "States Rights" all the time without much thought to our territories. Centinel sees that, if there was a civil war over Texas, that would turn Texas into an occupied territory, and he sees that as wrong; however, we do already own territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa that do not have representation in Congress yet have to listen to federal law anyway.
MadLib said:The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?
Explain, if you can.
Quantrill
Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition
Did you even notice his issue and mine and few others is with the accuracy of that ruling? What exactly makes you think people aren't aware of what it says?
If you can disprove it according to history, then why don't you instead of whining about what I said.
Quantrill
The fledgling U.S. granted elite British land owners back their property after the war as if nothing had happened. The colonies were never a state of Britain, they were an outpost that Britain for all intent ignored until after it's war with France was over and it needed tax slaves to pay back it's war debt. That said, how could the colonies seceed if it wasn't a recognized state to begin with?Perhaps. Did the USA repay Britain for all the money spent building early America, after we seceeded from the British Empire? I've never run across any info that we did...
"the accuracy of that ruling?" Just what do you mean? Are you of the opinion that you and your friends are more knowledgeable in Constitutional law than the justices on the Supreme Court.
Of course, a few people are aware of the ruling, that does not mean however they actually know much about the subject. Simply because you disagree does not mean it is not a valid ruling.
Don't feel like reading, or don't like what it says?
Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.
You want to say slavery wasn't the only issue, that's fine. You're probably correct. You want to say it wasn't an issue? Dead wrong, it was an issue.
Ratification by the States or else it would not exist. If it had been for the people of the Unitied States as a whole, as a Nation, then no need for ratification of the States or anyone as the delegates in Philedlphia already represented the US. And when they finally voted on the Constitution they created, then that should have been it, if we the people were we the people of the Nation as a whole. But it wasn't it because we the people were the people of the States and so the States needed to ratify.
Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.
Quantrill
Don't want to talk to a link. Its a forum. Hopefully a certain degree of knowledge is gained by the poster so that they can offer an explanation to what they have learned. Nothing wrong with proving a point by showing its source. But I like some explanation.
The statement made was that the South fought to preserve slavery.
Quantrill
Appeals to authority do not worry me, Somerville.
If you can defend the court in their ruling and get around obvious issues with it which everyone knows by now that has been following this thread, do so. If not, and you wish to just say I'm stupid that is your right, but don't expect it will win you anything.
Its interesting to note that Chase years after the ruling said session was legal. Then again, Chase was more of a politician than anything else and he was known to say something is this and then turn around and say it was the exact opposite.
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?