By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Screw it: secede from the Union!

halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
Its laughable how you can deride the Civil War and run to the rescue of states rights in the same sentence.

You know who has historically been the first sovereign to take away people's rights? The states. You know who has historically been the biggest advocate of civil liberties via the Supreme Court? The federal government.

McCulloch v. Maryland, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, DC Gun Ban only recently overturned by Heller vs DC, say hi.

Fed gov't and SC are separate entities separated by checks and balances.  Essentially the feds can lobby and comment about what the SC should do all they want but the 9 Justices make up their minds on their own w/o executive/legis interference.

Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Brown v. Board of Education, Gitlow v. New York, NAACP v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon.

How many cases you cited were not overturned?  And how is McCulloch v. Maryland a bad thing?  And are you against the Supreme Court striking down a ban on guns?

So now the Supreme Court isn't part of the federal government?  Man you are dumb.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Quickdraw McGraw said:

Do you (OP) honestly believe what you are saying?
This is getting ridiculous.

I'm absolutely serious. Take a government class, economics, something.
You clearly have no idea what you are stating.

EDIT: If that seemed too harsh I apologize. Seriously though, the conservative movement in this country has gone insane. You lost an election roughly 6 months ago. That's it. Where were you when our country's values were being torn apart by Bush?

We were he complaining on the issues real conservatives disagree with.  We lost an election.  So what.  This is not about McCain losing to Obama.  This is about the fed govt interfering with state authority.  The US is a collection of United States bound together by a Const and the mutual opinion that they should be in the Union, not a country with 50 subservient little provinces.

 



Last time I checked, STATES have been the ones who have passed the highest tax raises in the last few months. So it is OK if your state raises your taxes but not OK if the federal government does it?



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
Its laughable how you can deride the Civil War and run to the rescue of states rights in the same sentence.

You know who has historically been the first sovereign to take away people's rights? The states. You know who has historically been the biggest advocate of civil liberties via the Supreme Court? The federal government.

McCulloch v. Maryland, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, DC Gun Ban only recently overturned by Heller vs DC, say hi.

Fed gov't and SC are separate entities separated by checks and balances.  Essentially the feds can lobby and comment about what the SC should do all they want but the 9 Justices make up their minds on their own w/o executive/legis interference.

Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Brown v. Board of Education, Gitlow v. New York, NAACP v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon.

How many cases you cited were not overturned?  And how is McCulloch v. Maryland a bad thing?  And are you against the Supreme Court striking down a ban on guns?

So now the Supreme Court isn't part of the federal government?  Man you are dumb.

 

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution.
I did not know banks were guns.  I must be lost somewhere.

 



akuma587 said:
Last time I checked, STATES have been the ones who have passed the highest tax raises in the last few months. So it is OK if your state raises your taxes but not OK if the federal government does it?

Not if they force you to accept the stimulus money that your state doen't need, ie Texas.  California is raising taxes b/c they can't get their act together economically.  I would encourage you to read this: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/04/01/fncs-napolitano-claims-bush-administration-committed-extortion-against-ba  Yes it comes from a Fox story but the guy who hey interviewed is not affiliated w/ them.

 



Around the Network

The Constitution is four pages long. Do you really think the Framers wanted us to strictly construe every power the federal government has or let us have some flexibility? Do you think they wanted us to strictly construe every right granted to the people in the Bill of Rights?

And where in the Constitution, mind you, is there any protection from the government raising taxes?

How about if the government bugged the wires outside of your house without a warrant and listened to all your phone conversations? That isn't a "search," that is just a "listen." If you strictly interpreted the Fourth Amendment, police could do that without any trouble.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
Its laughable how you can deride the Civil War and run to the rescue of states rights in the same sentence.

You know who has historically been the first sovereign to take away people's rights? The states. You know who has historically been the biggest advocate of civil liberties via the Supreme Court? The federal government.

McCulloch v. Maryland, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, DC Gun Ban only recently overturned by Heller vs DC, say hi.

Fed gov't and SC are separate entities separated by checks and balances.  Essentially the feds can lobby and comment about what the SC should do all they want but the 9 Justices make up their minds on their own w/o executive/legis interference.

Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Brown v. Board of Education, Gitlow v. New York, NAACP v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon.

How many cases you cited were not overturned?  And how is McCulloch v. Maryland a bad thing?  And are you against the Supreme Court striking down a ban on guns?

So now the Supreme Court isn't part of the federal government?  Man you are dumb.

 

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution.
I did not know banks were guns.  I must be lost somewhere.

 

Is that bad or something?

 



totalwar23 said:
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
Its laughable how you can deride the Civil War and run to the rescue of states rights in the same sentence.

You know who has historically been the first sovereign to take away people's rights? The states. You know who has historically been the biggest advocate of civil liberties via the Supreme Court? The federal government.

McCulloch v. Maryland, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, DC Gun Ban only recently overturned by Heller vs DC, say hi.

Fed gov't and SC are separate entities separated by checks and balances.  Essentially the feds can lobby and comment about what the SC should do all they want but the 9 Justices make up their minds on their own w/o executive/legis interference.

Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Brown v. Board of Education, Gitlow v. New York, NAACP v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon.

How many cases you cited were not overturned?  And how is McCulloch v. Maryland a bad thing?  And are you against the Supreme Court striking down a ban on guns?

So now the Supreme Court isn't part of the federal government?  Man you are dumb.

 

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution.
I did not know banks were guns.  I must be lost somewhere.

 

Is that bad or something?

 

It forced the individual states to give the ult economic power to the fed govt based on loose interpretation of the Const.

 



States Rights pretty much went away with direct elections of Senators.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

halogamer1989 said:
totalwar23 said:
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
halogamer1989 said:
akuma587 said:
Its laughable how you can deride the Civil War and run to the rescue of states rights in the same sentence.

You know who has historically been the first sovereign to take away people's rights? The states. You know who has historically been the biggest advocate of civil liberties via the Supreme Court? The federal government.

McCulloch v. Maryland, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, DC Gun Ban only recently overturned by Heller vs DC, say hi.

Fed gov't and SC are separate entities separated by checks and balances.  Essentially the feds can lobby and comment about what the SC should do all they want but the 9 Justices make up their minds on their own w/o executive/legis interference.

Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Brown v. Board of Education, Gitlow v. New York, NAACP v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Nixon.

How many cases you cited were not overturned?  And how is McCulloch v. Maryland a bad thing?  And are you against the Supreme Court striking down a ban on guns?

So now the Supreme Court isn't part of the federal government?  Man you are dumb.

 

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution. The Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, would sanction laws reflecting “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution.
I did not know banks were guns.  I must be lost somewhere.

 

Is that bad or something?

 

It forced the individual states to give the ult economic power to the fed govt based on loose interpretation of the Const.

 

Well, for the loose interpretation, remember that Jefferson was the ultimate strict constructionist. Yet, he had to abandon that principle when he purchased the Lousiana Territority. Essentially, he said what was practical should be held above what is pure theory. In any case, loose constructionist prevailed, which I think is for the better as Jefferson found out, the Constitution said nothing about Congress being able to buy land.

Second, yeah, Andrew Jackson took the same position you did about the B.U.S. He was abled to killed it and allow state banks to do what they wanted. It didn't work out so well and caused a huge economic downfall. They spent crazily (in part by Henry Clay and without the B.U.S. to oversee things) involving land values and in the end, it was a clusterfuck. Banks went belly up, silver and gold were drained, and some banks didn't even take the printed currency they had themselves issued. It destroyed Martin Van Buren's presidency so the B.U.S. isn't such a great example for you to use.