On one of those discovery channel shows on gangs a while back. They did it on MS-13 and interviewed some US gov’t guy who said they have deported some known gangmembers upwards of 30 times. And talked to some girl who was an ex-member or dated a member and said that a bunch of them would turn themselves in around christmas so they could go home and celebrate the holiday with their family/friends back home.
Some things just don’t make sense.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
you can continue to brush anything you’d like off. what you think really doesn’t mean a thing. i live a better life than you, i’m on my way to being what i want to be and your opinion is your own. you can have it but it doesn’t bother me. sorry.
sniff
You know nothing of my life - why do you insist on trumpeting how much better yours is than mine (and lots of other strangers)?
apparently you haven’t done much research. it’s historical fact. illegality of secession wasn’t made in to a law until after the civil war. The 14th amendment discusses it directly, and it wasn’t entered until after the Union won and decided to end all chance of losing part of the nation again. They made a law where there wasn’t one.
Apparently I have. Nothing you said above is right. It was not a historical fact - Madison didn’t believe in secession. Jefferson actually prosecuted Aaron Burr for a secession attempt.
And if you read the Constitution and place secession power in its context, it doesn’t make sense in the constitutional scheme.
It’s not a historical fact just because you want it to be. You should try some other classes than marketing.
If my scarlet letter is symbolic of having a successful family, being successful myself in virtually all endeavours so far and continuing to so, i’ll proudly wear it. there is no shame if that is what you are contending.
You don’t have a scarlet letter because your family is successful.[/quote]
The opinions of a few men do not equate law. Enforceable, communicated ideas backed by a population and put in to writing does.
This did not exist in the context of secession at the time the south seceded. You can name all the big gov’t fanatics you want, but if you are actually historically educated you know there was a small gov’t confederate supporter for every federalist. In fact, the forefathers promoted a confederation of self governed states long before federalism won the day.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
The opinions of a few men do not equate law. Enforceable, communicated ideas backed by a population and put in to writing does. [/quote]
You continue to underwhelm.
If “the opinions of a few men don’t equate law”, then why did you insist on making your argument by reference to some yokel’s website?
Hilarious - my “big government fanatics” include Madison and…wait for it…Thomas Jefferson. What a fraud you are.
And of course, anyone who knows their history - that apparently is not you - understood that the creation of a Constitution was to remedy the weakness of the Articles and provide for a “more perfect Union”.
Secondly, you haven’t made argument one why secession was legal - you continue to blather about irrelevant topics and never address the real one.
Third, you say for every person who was a federalist, there was another who was a confederate as some “argument”. Fantastic, looks like more “federalists” took the day when we saw the signing at the courthouse in Appamatox, no? You want it to boil down to rank majoritarianism - looks like you lose. Again.
And I mentioned two “forefathers” who were against secession, but apparently, ole Jefferson was one of the “big government fanatics” (hint: of all the forefathers, Jefferson was the “little government fanatic”).
Ouch - someone needs to get some book learnin’.
Short answer: stick to marketing, chuckles, before you embarrass yourself further.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
The opinions of a few men do not equate law. Enforceable, communicated ideas backed by a population and put in to writing does.
You continue to underwhelm.
If “the opinions of a few men don’t equate law”, then why did you insist on making your argument by reference to some yokel’s website?
This did not exist in the context of secession at the time the south seceded. You can name all the big gov’t fanatics you want, but if you are actually historically educated you know there was a small gov’t confederate supporter for every federalist. In fact, the forefathers promoted a confederation of self governed states long before federalism won the day.
Hilarious - my “big government fanatics” include Madison and…wait for it…Thomas Jefferson. What a fraud you are.
And of course, anyone who knows their history - that apparently is not you - understood that the creation of a Constitution was to remedy the weakness of the Articles and provide for a “more perfect Union”.
Secondly, you haven’t made argument one why secession was legal - you continue to blather about irrelevant topics and never address the real one.
Third, you say for every person who was a federalist, there was another who was a confederate as some “argument”. Fantastic, looks like more “federalists” took the day when we saw the signing at the courthouse in Appamatox, no? You want it to boil down to rank majoritarianism - looks like you lose. Again.
And I mentioned two “forefathers” who were against secession, but apparently, ole Jefferson was one of the “big government fanatics” (hint: of all the forefathers, Jefferson was the “little government fanatic”).
Ouch - someone needs to get some book learnin’.
Short answer: stick to marketing, chuckles, before you embarrass yourself further.[/quote]
All you are doing is taking subjective topics and attempting to make them sound objective. You are not fooling anyone at all.
There was no law preventing secession at the time the south left the union. If that statement is incorrect, show me the law in question along with a date.
The southern states left legally. Many people today feel abortion should be illegal, yet it isn’t. People of that time who felt secession should be illegal were voicing their opinions, not stating the law.
You have no case, no base for your argument and a pile of straw for logic.
Hit the books bro.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
All you are doing is taking subjective topics and attempting to make them sound objective. You are not fooling anyone at all. [/quote]
Still smarting over your pathetic error of naming Jefferson as a “big government fanatic”?
And, I don’t have to fool anyone. We are still waiting on you to make a cogent argument for secession. You haven’t. At all.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
Federal law trumps state law. If a state has secession power, it has veto power - it can require more than a majority of Congress to pass a federal law and more than 2/3 vote of the states/Congress to amend the Constitution itself.
The Constitution cannot conceivably be read to allow one state’s interests to trump the federal machinery of the rest of the nation in passing a federal law or amending the Constitution. It’s impossible. That couldn’t possibly be - we know the point of the Constitution was to give a national government more power.
Your arguments were dealt with in the Nullification crisis.
Plus, just to pile on:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union, suppress Insurrections”
Really? You keep saying that, but your dumb ass hasn’t provided any history or argument to back your point.
It could be - if the Supreme Court had recognized that abortion in a political issue well within the purview of state legislative power. The Constitution neither declares it nor prohibits it.
So, were the people who thought secession was ok doing the same thing?
Here is the thing - you have stated no “law” to support your point. Do you ever get around to it?
If you know “the law”, by all means, tell us. I get the sneaky suspicion you have no idea - but you can’t say “oops, I really don’t have any idea” because you are just proud. And dumb.
Heheh. Arguing with children always winds up in the same place. Just because you say it, we all know that doesn’t mean it is true.
I have an argument - I have history, I have law, I have the opinions of founding fathers (including “big government fanatic” Jefferson, to your continuing shame).
You have - well, a few conclusory statements, a slightly androgynous avatar, and…well, that is about it. You still haven’t explained where secession comes from, other than some bland and limp “people wanted it and um, they wanted it”.
Hilarious, “bro”. Which books, by the way? You haven’t referenced anything other than a hope you are right - so if you could lend me the book you used to come to your conclusions, I can perhaps catch up to you - well, assuming you haven’t colored on all the pages.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
All you are doing is taking subjective topics and attempting to make them sound objective. You are not fooling anyone at all.
Still smarting over your pathetic error of naming Jefferson as a “big government fanatic”?
And, I don’t have to fool anyone. We are still waiting on you to make a cogent argument for secession. You haven’t. At all.
There was no law preventing secession at the time the south left the union. If that statement is incorrect, show me the law in question along with a date.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
Federal law trumps state law. If a state has secession power, it has veto power - it can require more than a majority of Congress to pass a federal law and more than 2/3 vote of the states/Congress to amend the Constitution itself.
The Constitution cannot conceivably be read to allow one state’s interests to trump the federal machinery of the rest of the nation in passing a federal law or amending the Constitution. It’s impossible. That couldn’t possibly be - we know the point of the Constitution was to give a national government more power.
Your arguments were dealt with in the Nullification crisis.
Plus, just to pile on:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of Union, suppress Insurrections”
The southern states left legally.
Really? You keep saying that, but your dumb ass hasn’t provided any history or argument to back your point.
Many people today feel abortion should be illegal, yet it isn’t.
It could be - if the Supreme Court had recognized that abortion in a political issue well within the purview of state legislative power. The Constitution neither declares it nor prohibits it.
People of that time who felt secession should be illegal were voicing their opinions, not stating the law.
So, were the people who thought secession was ok doing the same thing?
Here is the thing - you have stated no “law” to support your point. Do you ever get around to it?
If you know “the law”, by all means, tell us. I get the sneaky suspicion you have no idea - but you can’t say “oops, I really don’t have any idea” because you are just proud. And dumb.
You have no case, no base for your argument and a pile of straw for logic.
Heheh. Arguing with children always winds up in the same place. Just because you say it, we all know that doesn’t mean it is true.
I have an argument - I have history, I have law, I have the opinions of founding fathers (including “big government fanatic” Jefferson, to your continuing shame).
You have - well, a few conclusory statements, a slightly androgynous avatar, and…well, that is about it. You still haven’t explained where secession comes from, other than some bland and limp “people wanted it and um, they wanted it”.
Hit the books bro.
Hilarious, “bro”. Which books, by the way? You haven’t referenced anything other than a hope you are right - so if you could lend me the book you used to come to your conclusions, I can perhaps catch up to you - well, assuming you haven’t colored on all the pages.[/quote]
Show me the law banning the south’s actions. You have huff and puffed all day long, but go ahead and blow the house down if you can.
Which law banned secession? Show me. I’m tired of your bullshit rants.
Since they don’t cover this in marketing class:
Article XIII, Articles of Confederation
[i]Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. [/i]
Translation: the Union is perpetual until all the states get together and revoke the Articles.
Then, the ratification of the Constitution was to create “a more perfect Union”, to make it better - the old Union was imperfect, but even it mandated the perpetual nature of its existence.
So, ratifying a Constitution to make the Union stronger means doing away with the “perpetual Union” character of the previous charter, which didn’t allow unilateral secession unless all parties came together?
Nope. Allowing secession where it wasn’t allowed before would make the Union weaker - and we know that can’t be right based on the preamble of the Constitution: the entire point was to strengthen the national government, not weaken it.
The Articles were “inviolate” by the states, but the Constitution, designed to make a stronger Union, was “violate” at a whim? No analysis other than common sense is needed to no this isn’t right.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Show me the law banning the south’s actions. You have huff and puffed all day long, but go ahead and blow the house down if you can.
Which law banned secession? Show me. I’m tired of your bullshit rants.
[/quote]
I keep showing you arguments, history, Founding Fathers’ ideas.
I show you the Supremacy Clause, which can’t possibly be read to allow secession - if states had secession power, a state “power” would trump federal power in an area reserved to the federal government (how the federal government passes its laws).
And then you start sniveling about not seeing any law when it is right there for you to read. Your ignorance of it is not my problem to fix. Maybe more electives next semester, Einstein.
And then, in a separate post, I give you the Articles of Confederation. You can read, I assume?
It is a shame the Articles of Confederation were not valid during the civil war. We operated under this little document commonly known as the Constitution.
You still can’t provide a relevant point amidst all your huffing and puffing.
So far you have done nothing but highlight then political sentiment not expressed in law, you have brought up long dead and irrelevant documents as if they would shed light on your non point and you have taken ridiculous stabs at my unrelated area of study in college which is ridiculous as historical information is available to anyone who searches for it.
You don’t seem to do much searching. Show me the law that proves you correct. I’ll continue to finish my marketing degree, go on to make money with it, inherit more money than you would know what to do with and still be a history fan too.
You have proven nothing but that you are a dumb ass. Show me the law as it pertained to the issue at hand. You can’t. Why? It doesn’t exist!
Anyways, i’m off to a bar b cue. You are wasting your time with your rants. they don’t bother me and they don’t prove anything.
Show me relevant, supporting information please.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Since they don’t cover this in marketing class:
Article XIII, Articles of Confederation
[i]Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. [/i]
Translation: the Union is perpetual until all the states get together and revoke the Articles.
Then, the ratification of the Constitution was to create “a more perfect Union”, to make it better - the old Union was imperfect, but even it mandated the perpetual nature of its existence.
So, ratifying a Constitution to make the Union stronger means doing away with the “perpetual Union” character of the previous charter, which didn’t allow unilateral secession unless all parties came together?
Nope. Allowing secession where it wasn’t allowed before would make the Union weaker - and we know that can’t be right based on the preamble of the Constitution: the entire point was to strengthen the national government, not weaken it.
The Articles were “inviolate” by the states, but the Constitution, designed to make a stronger Union, was “violate” at a whim? No analysis other than common sense is needed to no this isn’t right.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
Show me the law banning the south’s actions. You have huff and puffed all day long, but go ahead and blow the house down if you can.
Which law banned secession? Show me. I’m tired of your bullshit rants.
I keep showing you arguments, history, Founding Fathers’ ideas.
I show you the Supremacy Clause, which can’t possibly be read to allow secession - if states had secession power, a state “power” would trump federal power in an area reserved to the federal government (how the federal government passes its laws).
And then you start sniveling about not seeing any law when it is right there for you to read. Your ignorance of it is not my problem to fix. Maybe more electives next semester, Einstein.
And then, in a separate post, I give you the Articles of Confederation. You can read, I assume?[/quote]
“I keep showing you arguments, history, Founding Fathers’ ideas.”
you sure do show me political dissonance of the time, now show me the actual law.
The supremacy clause applies to states in the nation, not seperate countries which is what the confederate states were.
when the confederation left, nothing was legally preventing them from doing so. The supremacy clause did affect states who remained in the Union however. The south left the Union, it’s clauses, constitutions and federal laws for their own and they did so legally.
Show me where they were banned from leaving the Union. You still havn’t and apparantly can not. Had they remained a part of the Union, the ideology of the supremacy clause would have pertained to them, but they didn’t and legally so.
law please.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
It is a shame the Articles of Confederation were not valid during the civil war. We operated under this little document commonly known as the Constitution.
You still can’t provide a relevant point amidst all your huffing and puffing. [/quote]
I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt - you really are quite dumb.
To understand what the Constitution means, you have to know where it came from.
The point of the Constitution was to improve the Imperfect Union under the Articles. Everyone acknowledges this except for you while throwing your tantrum.
So, I have historical context, plus specific language - Supremacy Clause - and you keep whining. Clearly - well, clear to anyone who is bothering to read any of this - is that you are just being disagreeable out of a matter of being proud. Easy to do with internet anonymity, aye “bro”?
Utter nonsense - but no surprise. I showed you law - you are incapable of understanding it. I showed you history - you are ignorant of it. I showed you Founding Fathers’ ideas - you think Jefferson is a “big government fanatic” (still laughing on that) and then try to reference our “forefathers” without anything they said.
And, of course, my “irrelevant” documents comprise the exact approach a court would use to try and figure out if secession is “illegal” - you said it was “illegal”, but all of the “irrelevant documents” you cry about supply the answer. You just can’t yield when it is obvious you have no depth in this area of knowledge.
And you do make one good point - historical information is there for anyone who wants to read it. Try it. It is quite clear to anyone reading you haven’t.
You must be so proud of being a mooch - but alas, you can’t buy your way out of being a douchebag. You’ll learn that the hard way, I suppose.
That said, you keep referencing my “searching” - hilarious.
Here is an idea - let’s put the stack of books I have read on a table next to the stack you have read, and then you can have your daddy explain the difference.
By the way - has it not dawned on you that the populace of T-Nation is laughing at your expense as you continue your antics?
Oh, and I have shown you plenty. You haven’t refuted a single argument - you realize that? Tell where the Supremacy Clause argument is wrong. Can you?
Read above - if you don’t get it, ask your daddy to explain it.
Well, you are right about me wasting my time.
Already did - relevant, supporting, plus a dose of logic. Not my problem if you don’t have the capacity to handle it, which we have all seen is the case.
Texasguy, you are fucking retarded. Get a refund on your education.
Your law is the Supremacy clause, and thunder is right. It cannot in any way, shape, or form be interpreted to mean that a state could ever “legally” secede from the Union. If you could rub two brain cells together, you can see how the Supremacy clause prohibits secession.
The Confederate States may have considered themselves a separate country, but they obviously were not at the time they seceded. Thus, the Sup. Clause applied to them, disallowing their secession.
What kind of nation allows for its constituent parts to “legally” leave at a whim? Certainly not the U.S., at any point in its history.
You are free to make your own value judgments on the merits of the rebellion, but it certainly was not “legal”.
[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
The supremacy clause applies to states in the nation, not seperate countries which is what the confederate states were. [/quote]
Correct - and the states were, uh, states of the nation.
Wrong again - “leaving” was illegal. You are trying to argue backwards. The Supremacy Clause trumps any state power that negates the supremacy of the federal law - start at the beginning. The power to leave via secession was a state power that ran afoul of the federal law’s supremacy, so before the secession power was ever exercised, it was facially void.
The Supremacy Clause didn’t “kick in” after the states left - it applied before they left. There was no power to exercise.
Leaving the Union was an impermissible power - so states that “left” weren’t in the clear. They never had the power to exercise in the first place.
Already did. The Supremacy Clause directly trumped secession power. The power wasn’t there to exercise in the first place. The states didn’t have the power under the Articles and they didn’t suddenly get them when they ratified the Constitution.
Therefore, leaving the Union was an insurrection, which the federal government has a right to put down.
Act of secession = breaks the law in place.
You keep saying secession power was legal - you never say where that comes from.
Oh, and by the way, the Supremacy Clause doesn’t have an “ideology” - so focus on words you know how to use.
Question: was secession an act of revolution?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Texasguy, you are fucking retarded. Get a refund on your education.
Your law is the Supremacy clause, and thunder is right. It cannot in any way, shape, or form be interpreted to mean that a state could ever “legally” secede from the Union. If you could rub two brain cells together, you can see how the Supremacy clause prohibits secession.
The Confederate States may have considered themselves a separate country, but they obviously were not at the time they seceded. Thus, the Sup. Clause applied to them, disallowing their secession.
What kind of nation allows for its constituent parts to “legally” leave at a whim? Certainly not the U.S., at any point in its history.
You are free to make your own value judgments on the merits of the rebellion, but it certainly was not “legal”.[/quote]
Good post, Tgun.
And that is one of the reasons many secessionists make the argument that secession was a revolutionary act in the mold of Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence”.
You remember Jefferson? The “big government fanatic” that secessionists routinely rely on for their arguments?
:>
Yes but there is nothing wrong with the supremecy clause when you are trying to keep your government and country in tact. You should be the supreme body in your own nation and be able to keep control.