Thoughts on the purpose of government

[Reformedfindlay]

really?........first do you think in this day and age which people have moved across this nation, the north is going to attack and fight its own people..........no.

second ...the north cannot defeat the south, look at military bases, look at NASA, look were food is grown/produced,.........no its not 1861 any more, the north will not win.

It can be applied in a modern sense I guess (not that I intended it to but my wording didn't make that clear), but in terms of back then...

What would have stopped the North from just doing that?

You cry that Lincoln shredded the constitution but even if he didn't then he would've just declared war and everything that happened would have still happened, right?

So why get angry over it when there is literally that one tiny little loophole that makes the EXACT same thing happen?

As for modern day...

Depending on what states *try to* secede and how many states secede yes the rest of the USA will go to war and simply reabsorb them.

That one little loophole negates the whole power of the states to secede.

Secession? Fine, then we'll just be going to war with "another country."

Besides, none of this matters because until the Supreme court says "ok states can secede now" no state is going to secede.

 

[blaxshep]

You cry that Lincoln shredded the constitution but even if he did he would've just declared war and everything that happened would have still happened, right?

No if he would have abided by the constitution the USA would now be two separate sovereign nations.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

No if he would have abided by the constitution the USA would now be two separate sovereign nations.

No, because one nation would have simply declared war on the other nation and absorb it.

It's called "conquest"

 

[Master PO]

It can be applied in a modern sense I guess (not that I intended it to but my wording didn't make that clear), but in terms of back then...

What would have stopped the North from just doing that?

You cry that Lincoln shredded the constitution but even if he did he would've just declared war and everything that happened would have still happened, right?

So why get angry over it when there is literally that one tiny little loophole that makes the EXACT same thing happen?

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union that was his goal, he did not care if slaves were free, but he did not want to just declare war on the south, fort Sumter, gave him his reason.

Note....Lincoln stated before he was president.....secession by states is a legal power of the states.

i base my thinking on strict constitutional law....when you do not , then interpreting the Constitution becomes what ever the powers that be say it is.....and that is a dangerous thing.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union that was his goal, he did not care if slaves were free, but he did not want to just declare war on the south, fort Sumter, gave him his reason.

Note....Lincoln stated before he was president.....secession by states is a legal power of the states.

i base my thinking on strict constitutional law....when you do not , then interpreting the Constitution becomes what ever the powers that be say it is.....and that is a dangerous thing.

It's not a power to the states now... Texas v White (remember?)

Hey, if you don't like the USA you can always "secede" to China :lamo

 

[Master PO]

It's not a power to the states now... Texas v White (remember?)

Hey, if you don't like the USA you can always "secede" to China :lamo

i stated it is a state power, because no power is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to prevent secession.

Madison makes it clear, the federal government cannot used force on a states to preserve the Harmony of the union.

the last remark is that strictly of a kid.......and you act as though you should be taken seriously?

 

[Henrin]

It's not a power to the states now... Texas v White (remember?)

Hey, if you don't like the USA you can always "secede" to China :lamo

Do you know what Salmon P. Chase was doing during the civil war?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

i stated it is a state power, because no power is delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to prevent secession.

Madison makes it clear, the federal government cannot used force on a states to preserve the Harmony of the union.

the last remark is that strictly of a kid.......and you act as though you should be taken seriously?

But again, like I said...

If states secede then they can simply be declared war on and reabsorbed by the victor because they would no longer be states but rather separate countries. They wouldn't be protected by the constitution or anything of the sort.

 

[Henrin]

But again, like I said...

If states secede then they can simply be declared war on and reabsorbed by the victor.

You mean like how someone could get shot when they walk out their door? Or how someone could get kidnapped and forced into labor?

 

[Master PO]

But again, like I said...

If states secede then they can simply be declared war on and reabsorbed by the victor because they would no longer be states but rather separate countries. They wouldn't be protected by the constitution or anything of the sort.

that is not going to happen, do you really think the u.s. will declare war , without it in danger?

you really thing Americans are going to kill Americans in this day and age over secession...no

if a civil war were to happen it would be Americas destruction because our enemies abroad would "move in for the kill"

 

[Reformedfindlay]

if a civil war were to happen it would be Americas destruction because our enemies abroad would "move in for the kill"

Secession would also convey weakness to "our" enemies abroad (because who knows, the enemy of one state is the friend of the other state).

 

[Henrin]

Secession would also convey weakness to "our" enemies abroad (because who knows, the enemy of one state is the friend of the other state).

When Scotland had a vote a while back to leave the UK was getting attacked from enemies because of it a huge concern for England? No, no it wasn't.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

When Scotland had a vote a while back to leave the UK was getting attacked from enemies because of it a huge concern for England? No, no it wasn't.

It also never seceded. It simply considered secession.

Also, this isn't two separate countries, seceding states opens up the possibility (the absolute most) of having 50 separate countries.

"City states" historically have always failed.

 

[Henrin]

It also never seceded. It simply considered secession.

Yes, it never left, but was there any real concern about the UK getting attacked if Scotland left?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Yes, it never left, but was there any real concern about the UK getting attacked if Scotland left?

No because the UK has nuclear weapons.

Would all American states have nuclear weapons?

Would all American states have the same ally (remember how the South tried gaining support from Britain during the Civil war?)?

How do you determine which state is given the nuclear weapons?

What would the relationship be between one state with nuclear weapons and another state without nuclear weapons?

What about pre-existing infrastructure?

Would certain states have monopolies?

Can some states starve out others?

Can some states force other states into the stone age by not manufacturing anything for them?

Secession causes huge problems especially as the room for secession grows (we have up to a maximum of 50 different countries).

 

[Paleocon]

The fact that it happens doesn't make it right. I stand by my statement. Governments have no place regulating personal behavior. It's an affront to liberty, plain and simple. Those who would advocate that government do more of the same are enemies of liberty.

Why is it wrong for the government to regulate behavior?

 

[LagerHead]

Why is it wrong for the government to regulate behavior?

Because if I drink a beer in the privacy of my home, it's none of your or their damn business. It doesn't affect you. It doesn't harm you. The government's job is not to control every aspect of my life. But you wouldn't find a single politician out there that acts accordingly.

 

[Paleocon]

Because if I drink a beer in the privacy of my home, it's none of your or their damn business. It doesn't affect you. It doesn't harm you. The government's job is not to control every aspect of my life. But you wouldn't find a single politician out there that acts accordingly.

Would it be wrong for the government to prohibit you from committing murder in the privacy of your own home?

 

[LagerHead]

Would it be wrong for the government to prohibit you from committing murder in the privacy of your own home?

Stupid question. But since you obviously don't get it, I'm going to humor you. If I murder someone, does it affect them? Of course if ****ing does. That's an infringement on another's rights. When I drink a beer, it is not. The difference is so vastly huge the fact that I am being forced to even acknowledge it is quite embarrassing.

 

[Paleocon]

Stupid question. But since you obviously don't get it, I'm going to humor you. If I murder someone, does it affect them? Of course if ****ing does. That's an infringement on another's rights. When I drink a beer, it is not. The difference is so vastly huge the fact that I am being forced to even acknowledge it is quite embarrassing.

So if and only if something has an effect on another person, the government should be able to ban it?

 

[blaxshep]

So if and only if something has an effect on another person, the government should be able to ban it?

No victim no crime.

 

[LagerHead]

So if and only if something has an effect on another person, the government should be able to ban it?

Buh bye.

 

[Paleocon]

No victim no crime.

Why is this?

 

[blaxshep]

Why is this?

It should be a constitutional amendment IMO. Why should anyone be punished if no one was harmed?

 

[Paleocon]

It should be a constitutional amendment IMO. Why should anyone be punished if no one was harmed?

Must the harm be physical?