This is the story of why so many American voters are dumb about politics.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) August 22, 2024
"We can track one-for-one the decline of American political discourse and the rise of public education."pic.twitter.com/hLnfSzHUIu
4th and Inches said:Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcornboognish_bear said:
A State lacks sovereignty in terms of our conversation, secession. They are subordinate to the Federal Government based on the Supremacy Clause. The Government is perpetual based on the Constitutions origins in the Articles of Confederation. States ONLY have the powers that are not delegated to the Fed. States cannot secede and have not been able to since they joined the Union and became subordinate to the Union. Please try to keep the discussion on point. States seceding from the Union, that is the context you brought up. 1861 is the date you set. No 2023 Roberts quotes, State borders or any other red herring you want to throw out there. I get you like to jump around when you lost an argument and change the parameters of the discussion.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?
People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.
Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.
[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.
Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..
A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861
In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.
The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence
No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...
Wut? lol
Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.
Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]
Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.
But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.
FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"
In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???
State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.
You know this....
"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930
The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." -Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]
2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.
In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free
https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500
What Roberts has to say in his opinion in 2013 really has nothing to do with the Civil War )
No one said it did
The Roberts quote was posted specifically to refute your very very very stupid statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
A modern Supreme Court in 2013 affirms they do and you are wrong.
(Secession is another debate)
States having sovereignty is not up for debate
Do you think that your argument gets better by repeating it 10,000 times?FLBear5630 said:A State lacks sovereignty in terms of our conversation, secession. They are subordinate to the Federal Government based on the Supremacy Clause. The Government is perpetual based on the Constitutions origins in the Articles of Confederation. States ONLY have the powers that are not delegated to the Fed. States cannot secede and have not been able to since they joined the Union and became subordinate to the Union. Please try to keep the discussion on point. States seceding from the Union, that is the context you brought up. 1861 is the date you set. No 2023 Roberts quotes, State borders or any other red herring you want to throw out there. I get you like to jump around when you lost an argument and change the parameters of the discussion.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?
People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.
Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.
[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.
Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..
A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861
In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.
The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence
No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...
Wut? lol
Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.
Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]
Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.
But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.
FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"
In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???
State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.
You know this....
"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930
The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." -Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]
2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.
In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free
https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500
What Roberts has to say in his opinion in 2013 really has nothing to do with the Civil War )
No one said it did
The Roberts quote was posted specifically to refute your very very very stupid statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
A modern Supreme Court in 2013 affirms they do and you are wrong.
(Secession is another debate)
States having sovereignty is not up for debate
States could not uni-lateral secede then, couldn't after Texas vs White and still can't. Your interpretation of what is legal or not, is irrelevant. Lincoln had a better grasp of 1861 than you. So, I will go with Lincoln.
KaiBear said:4th and Inches said:Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcornboognish_bear said:
Indeed
Trump simply can not keep his mouth shut under any circumstances.
Talk to the other guy... I am responding to his comment. I could care less, I know it is illegal for a State to secede. He doesn't seem to get it. There are only so many creative ways to say the same thing. But, everyone learns differently. Who am I to judge.Adriacus Peratuun said:Do you think that your argument gets better by repeating it 10,000 times?FLBear5630 said:A State lacks sovereignty in terms of our conversation, secession. They are subordinate to the Federal Government based on the Supremacy Clause. The Government is perpetual based on the Constitutions origins in the Articles of Confederation. States ONLY have the powers that are not delegated to the Fed. States cannot secede and have not been able to since they joined the Union and became subordinate to the Union. Please try to keep the discussion on point. States seceding from the Union, that is the context you brought up. 1861 is the date you set. No 2023 Roberts quotes, State borders or any other red herring you want to throw out there. I get you like to jump around when you lost an argument and change the parameters of the discussion.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?
People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.
Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.
[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.
Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..
A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861
In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.
The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence
No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...
Wut? lol
Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.
Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]
Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.
But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.
FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"
In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???
State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.
You know this....
"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930
The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." -Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]
2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.
In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free
https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500
What Roberts has to say in his opinion in 2013 really has nothing to do with the Civil War )
No one said it did
The Roberts quote was posted specifically to refute your very very very stupid statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
A modern Supreme Court in 2013 affirms they do and you are wrong.
(Secession is another debate)
States having sovereignty is not up for debate
States could not uni-lateral secede then, couldn't after Texas vs White and still can't. Your interpretation of what is legal or not, is irrelevant. Lincoln had a better grasp of 1861 than you. So, I will go with Lincoln.
Because repetition doesn't make someone right. It simply makes them repetitive.
The message I get here is that FLBear wants everyone to know that he has no interest in the thread topic, and believes the Federal Government's authority powers include control of a legal time machine.Adriacus Peratuun said:Do you think that your argument gets better by repeating it 10,000 times?FLBear5630 said:A State lacks sovereignty in terms of our conversation, secession. They are subordinate to the Federal Government based on the Supremacy Clause. The Government is perpetual based on the Constitutions origins in the Articles of Confederation. States ONLY have the powers that are not delegated to the Fed. States cannot secede and have not been able to since they joined the Union and became subordinate to the Union. Please try to keep the discussion on point. States seceding from the Union, that is the context you brought up. 1861 is the date you set. No 2023 Roberts quotes, State borders or any other red herring you want to throw out there. I get you like to jump around when you lost an argument and change the parameters of the discussion.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:1. State sovereignty is not up for debate...its settled Constitutional law.FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So, Kentucky doesn't have to follow the 13th Amendment? They didn't ratify, so they don't have to do it. Hmmph. Maybe you should call their State Capitol and let them know.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
You realize that most of those quotes are from Northern historians and Founding fathers right?
People can have opinions and are not "found to be wrong" by virtue of the fact that you don't like them.
Again lets quote a Northern Chief Justice of the Supreme Court....not a "lost causer" that you are scared of.
[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court delivered opinion said. "If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the north, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion." Lincoln appointee Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
And White was a case from years after the war....in 1861 there was not Constitutional amendment that prevented Secession, no Congressional law that prevented Secession, and no Supreme Court case that prevented Secession.
Has White vs Texas been revisited? No. It is the law of the land and been so for over 100 years..
A Supreme Court ruling that did not exist in 1861
In 1861 there as not Constitutional amendment that forbid secession, no Congressional law that forbid secession, and not Supreme Court case that forbid secession.
The States had every right to feel they could take back the rights to sovereignty they had granted to the Federal government and declare independence
No they didn't. Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty. They must follow the Fed law even if they disagree. Sorry, your argument is Lost Cause BS ...
Wut? lol
Not even the most extreme Unionist has ever argued that the States don't have have soverignity.
Now they might argue the Union is unbreakable but not that the States have lost their soverignity by being members of that Union.
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,)]
Anyone in the Union has to follow the Constitution.
But you said States had no sovereignty....the Supreme Court (and our history) says they do.
FLBear:
"Under the Supremacy Clause the States have no sovereignty"
In 1861, the States sovereignty was GRANTED by the Federal and what the Feds didn't want the States got. You wanted to discuss 1861 and then use Robert's 2024???
State Sovereignty was not granted by the Federal government...it existed before the Federal government was created. The Federal Government was created by the States and People...and granted limited enumerated powers.
You know this....
"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, and the collective states, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930
The Holder case from 2013 was not posted to defend secession but to counter your foolish statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
Roberts and a modern Supreme Court affirm that they in fact DO!
[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal [emphasis added] sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized." -Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (+ justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25,]
2. I am happy to have a discussion on the merits of State Secession which is a different debatable matter.
In fact we have two threads for that.... on on the paid board and one on the free
https://sicem365.com/forums/19/topics/136952
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500
What Roberts has to say in his opinion in 2013 really has nothing to do with the Civil War )
No one said it did
The Roberts quote was posted specifically to refute your very very very stupid statement that the States lack Sovereignty.
A modern Supreme Court in 2013 affirms they do and you are wrong.
(Secession is another debate)
States having sovereignty is not up for debate
States could not uni-lateral secede then, couldn't after Texas vs White and still can't. Your interpretation of what is legal or not, is irrelevant. Lincoln had a better grasp of 1861 than you. So, I will go with Lincoln.
Because repetition doesn't make someone right. It simply makes them repetitive.
Please, never speak of that game again.boognish_bear said:KaiBear said:4th and Inches said:Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcornboognish_bear said:
Indeed
Trump simply can not keep his mouth shut under any circumstances.
It feels like Trump is up three points with less than 20 seconds left and a first down at the UNLV 8… But he still wants to try and score a touchdown
BUDOS said:
Which can get the country in trouble when he gets re-elected.
Rasmussen Trand
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 22, 2024
7/24 - 🔴 Trump +7
7/31 - 🔴 Trump +5
8/14 - 🔴 Trump +4
Today - 🔴 Trump +3 https://t.co/NruvLxXohR
#NEWS WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has allowed Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote to go into effect.
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 22, 2024
BREAKING: Among Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voters, 41% said they would vote for Trump and only 27% say they would vote for Harris, according to a Fox News poll.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) August 22, 2024
boognish_bear said:KaiBear said:4th and Inches said:Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcornboognish_bear said:
Such a great analogy! Was there for that nonsense
Indeed
Trump simply can not keep his mouth shut under any circumstances.
It feels like Trump is up three points with less than 20 seconds left and a first down at the UNLV 8… But he still wants to try and score a touchdown
flagged and reported as offensive..boognish_bear said:KaiBear said:4th and Inches said:Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcornboognish_bear said:
Indeed
Trump simply can not keep his mouth shut under any circumstances.
It feels like Trump is up three points with less than 20 seconds left and a first down at the UNLV 8… But he still wants to try and score a touchdown
4th and Inches said:flagged and reported as offensive..boognish_bear said:KaiBear said:4th and Inches said:Sounds like a train wreck, I'll bring the popcornboognish_bear said:
Indeed
Trump simply can not keep his mouth shut under any circumstances.
It feels like Trump is up three points with less than 20 seconds left and a first down at the UNLV 8… But he still wants to try and score a touchdown
Democrats remove opposition to the death penalty from party platform, marks first time since 2004 that the issue is not mentioned - HuffPost
— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) August 22, 2024
Odds Taylor Swift attends the DNC are up to 13%.
— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 22, 2024
Rumors are flying that her jet just landed in Chicago. pic.twitter.com/rSVk5Gq9zQ
Trump cuts interview with @NewsNation @AliBradleyTV short citing safety concerns.
— Libbey Dean (@LibbeyDean_) August 22, 2024
“We're in danger standing here talking, so let's not talk any longer,” said Trump. "No, I know about it, but they don't want me standing here. They don't want you standing here either.“ pic.twitter.com/2S6Mb8ZNqd
Trump's campaign announces a "special guest" will join him at his Glendale, Ariz., rally tomorrow. It's set to take place hours after Kennedy's announcement in nearby Phoenix.
— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) August 22, 2024
boognish_bear said:
KaiBear said:boognish_bear said:
Love Trump or hate him.
Wall's certainly work.
Dems have proved it in DC over and over again.
boognish_bear said:KaiBear said:boognish_bear said:
Love Trump or hate him.
Wall's certainly work.
Dems have proved it in DC over and over again.
It's just the way he is and always has been....but I wish he would say something like "the walls we built" instead of "the walls I built."
historian said:
Repetition is a standard propaganda tactic. If you repeat a lie often enough some people will begin to believe it no matter how absurd. This explains much of our media and it's why I say that they act like they're degrees or from the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism.
BUDOS said:
No argument here.
It's just part of being a narcissistic, megalomaniac, habitual liar, who happens to be a convicted sexual predator and felon who doesn't give a d@&# about you or just about anyone else not named Donald Trump. (Never forget January 6th nor what he did and didn't do).
You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.Adriacus Peratuun said:You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.ATL Bear said:That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.Adriacus Peratuun said:The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.ATL Bear said:The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.Adriacus Peratuun said:
Voice of Reality:
The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.
It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.
Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.
The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.
Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.
And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.
The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.
We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.
"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.
BUDOS said:
No argument here.
It's just part of being a narcissistic, megalomaniac, habitual liar, who happens to be a convicted sexual predator and felon who doesn't give a d@&# about you or just about anyone else not named Donald Trump. (Never forget January 6th nor what he did and didn't do).
And you seem to forget that people disagreeing with you doesn't rob them of having a perspective.ATL Bear said:You seem to be confusing propaganda with history.Adriacus Peratuun said:You are boasting morality. I am talking label application. The victor gets to apply the labels.ATL Bear said:That makes absolutely no sense. It would be like me taking your examples and saying the British were the patriots until the colonialists won (they fought the French and Indian War for the colonies), or the Union and not the Confederacy were traitors, until they weren't.Adriacus Peratuun said:The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.ATL Bear said:The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.Adriacus Peratuun said:
Voice of Reality:
The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.
It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.
Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.
It is "that simple". Winners dictate categorization.
When they were winners they dictated status. When they lost they didn't.
The Bolsheviks were patriots for decades until the economic pressure of the West caused the Soviet state to implode. As they left power they stopped being patriots.
When they were winners they dictated status. As subsequent losers they didn't.
Your examples do not support but rather undermine your point.
And it works both ways. Iran's democracy advocates were patriots for a few months until Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists destroyed them. Russian democracy advocates were patriots until Putin, the other Former KGB agents, and the sympathetic oligarchs destroyed them.
The French Revolution…..the Nazis…..,Peronistas……the list goes on and on. Everyone is a patriot until they lose power. They then join the ever growing list of state enemies.
We can still view Iranian democracy advocates as the right cause over the Islamist tyranny that is still in place today regardless of their success. Again, cause and purpose DO matter and victory does NOT always determine how one is viewed historically. In fact history is full of victors whose triumph was a scourge on the people and regions of the world.
"We" aren't applying labels in Iran. We can judge from afar but I guarantee you that all labeling within Iran is done by their leadership.
KaiBear said:boognish_bear said:
Love Trump or hate him.
Wall's certainly work.
Dems have proved it in DC over and over again.
