Marines officially go full REEEEE

[Jtrain80]

Soviet Union basically ended through secession. We seem to be trending that way

I sure hate to see you posting that. You are one of the most level headed and knowledgeable posters i have come across.

 

[BigBucnNole]

@Bledsoe's argument is a classic case of spin as well. It's uses politics of the day to skew the argument because the Constitutional case doesn't exist for secession. It's why it's commonly taught in high school to adolescents.

The Founders specifically drafted and ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation gave the states too much freedom within the federal government.

Just because the Union is colloquially a compact 'between the states' does not mean each state can just withdraw from the compact because they don't like the current situation.

The compact once ratified was a binding contract that was to be enforced by all those ratifying. Once the states ratified and joined the Union it was understood that the Constitution itself would have to explicitly allow their exit. The states in the compact have a right to expect the federal government to enforce the contract since that is the role of any government (to enforce contracts between people which is all that states represent).

If states didn't want to be bound to the union then they shouldn't have joined a compact not allowing for their exit. They knew what they were ratifying and made that choice.

It's not tyranny of any sort since any individual can leave the Union whenever they so choose.

Spin on words and popular public sentiment don't trump the law on the land (The Constitution).

From a theoretical standpoint... Then why have a contract if the federal government can violate it? The bill of rights aren’t some sort of suggestions. The second amendment in and of itself is meant to be an insurance policy. The original structure of the militia is tied to the states and would therefore suggest the states have the right through force to push the will of the people on the federal government when they cease following the previously agreed upon rules and procedures. And if there is a new contract written when the dust settles, why would it have to include 50 states?

 

[Jweast2486]

Secession isn’t the answer unfortunately, will require the states that still want to operate under the constitution and stand up and fight against the government that has become no longer a protector of the constitution and liberties guaranteed therein...more red states than blue, and they’re more dependent on other states and locations due to the large urban centers. Nevada cuts off the water to California and it wouldn’t last two weeks. Big question is will the military back the people or the tyrants like that loser marine who ‘slammed’ Tucker?

 

[Jtrain80]

From a theoretical standpoint... Then why have a contract if the federal government can violate it? The bill of rights aren’t some sort of suggestions. The second amendment in and of itself is meant to be an insurance policy. The original structure of the militia is tied to the states and would therefore suggest the states have the right through force to push the will of the people on the federal government when they cease following the previously agreed upon rules and procedures. And if there is a new contract written when the dust settles, why would it have to include 50 states?

I think it ends up being a state issue. Some states have already signed anti-2a legislation.

Marijuana is legal in some states, but not federally.

Edit: if dems get sanctuary cities, so do we.

 

[America 1st]

From a theoretical standpoint... Then why have a contract if the federal government can violate it? The bill of rights aren’t some sort of suggestions. The second amendment in and of itself is meant to be an insurance policy. The original structure of the militia is tied to the states and would therefore suggest the states have the right through force to push the will of the people on the federal government when they cease following the previously agreed upon rules and procedures. And if there is a new contract written when the dust settles, why would it have to include 50 states?

It's just your opinion that's it's being violated.

Even if your rights were being violated, which you would need to prove in a judicial court or through convention of the states, their is no mechanism in the Constitution that allows for the violent overthrow of government or it's abolishment.

The second amendment doesn't say anything about using arms to abolish government. It's simply says they are "necessary to the security of a free state" which could easily be interpreted to mean the people have a right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from violent attacks against the state.

The interpretation that the "security of a free state" it to keep people protected from their own government is simply one interpretation and relies on the premise that the people of the country aren't free (which would be a mighty tough case to prove and still wouldn't allow for the abolishment of government but only the retention of 'freedom').

 

[America 1st]

Secession isn’t the answer unfortunately, will require the states that still want to operate under the constitution and stand up and fight against the government that has become no longer a protector of the constitution and liberties guaranteed therein...more red states than blue, and they’re more dependent on other states and locations due to the large urban centers. Nevada cuts off the water to California and it wouldn’t last two weeks. Big question is will the military back the people or the tyrants like that loser marine who ‘slammed’ Tucker?

Anybody trying to revolt, overthrow, destroy, of force secession from the union should be met with all the force of the US military.

If people don't feel their liberty is being properly upheld it's incumbent upon them to move somewhere and establish that liberty instead of waging war against We The People and our government.

 

[BigBucnNole]

It's just your opinion that's it's being violated.

Even if your rights were being violated, which you would need to prove in a judicial court or through convention of the states, their is no mechanism in the Constitution that allows for the violent overthrow of government or it's abolishment.

The second amendment doesn't say anything about using arms to abolish government. It's simply says they are "necessary to the security of a free state" which could easily be interpreted to mean the people have a right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from violent attacks against the state.

The interpretation that the "security of a free state" it to keep people protected from their own government is simply one interpretation and relies on the premise that the people of the country aren't free (which would be a mighty tough case to prove and still wouldn't allow for the abolishment of government but only the retention of 'freedom').

Again, why even bother with a contract if it doesn’t matter whether the state abides by it?

I don’t even necessarily think the feds need to violate the rights for states to secede. At some point states are going to come to the conclusion that the relationships provided by a union of states is not beneficial. We’re close to that now. God help us if the Dems get their way and remove the electoral college.

 

[America 1st]

Article IV
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

Removing US citizens from the Union or keeping them from the full rights, liberties, services, goods, and property afforded them under the Union meets that definition of domestic violence or invasion by rebels.

Again, why even bother with a contract if it doesn’t matter whether the state abides by it?

I don’t even necessarily think the feds need to violate the rights for states to secede. At some point states are going to come to the conclusion that the relationships provided by a union of states is not beneficial. We’re close to that now. God help us if the Dems get their way and remove the electoral college.

It's been signed and agreed to.

The rest of us would bother to maintain it for our fellow citizens, their property, and security a larger union affords We The People.

The idea that the Union isn't benefiting all the states is just trolling.

If you don't like the Union you are free to leave at anytime but whole states are not and will never be allowed unless 3/4 agree via a Constitutional Convention or a new amendment is passed explicitly allowing it.

 

[muchandmore]

Anybody trying to revolt, overthrow, destroy, of force secession from the union should be met with all the force of the US military.

If people don't feel their liberty is being properly upheld it's incumbent upon them to move somewhere and establish that liberty instead of waging war against We The People and our government.

And every last founding father rolls over in their grave. Those who trade freedom for security and all..... You would gladly be a slave and watch your rights taken away one by one. I don't know what kind of megacuck you are, but holy sh*t what a beta. You are the absolute ideal future communist convert. Willing to accept authoritarian government and unwilling to fight or resist. This is the swampiest take existing on this board.

 

[America 1st]

And every last founding father rolls over in their grave. Those who trade freedom for security and all..... You would gladly be a slave and watch your rights taken away one by one. I don't know what kind of megacuck you are, but holy sh*t what a beta. You are the absolute ideal future communist convert. Willing to accept authoritarian government and unwilling to fight or resist. This is the swampiest take existing on this board.

We'll the Founders wrote the Constitution so I'd say they would disagree but we can agree to disagree and it won't hurt my feelings.

A small group's opinion about authoritarian government doesn't trump the will of We The People and our Constitution.

 

[muchandmore]

We'll the Founders wrote the Constitution so I'd say they would disagree but we can agree to disagree and it won't hurt my feelings.

Yes the same founders that were treasonous traitors who waged a terror campaign against their rightful government. They'd totally understand just accepting communism.

 

[muchandmore]

We'll the Founders wrote the Constitution so I'd say they would disagree but we can agree to disagree and it won't hurt my feelings.

A small group's opinion about authoritarian government doesn't trump the will of We The People and our Constitution.

Also the founding fathers:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[America 1st]

Yes the same founders that were treasonous traitors who waged a terror campaign against their rightful government. They'd totally understand just accepting communism.

Your opinion that you live under communism doesn't make it so.

Those people wrote the rules we live by today. If you don't like the rules then your issue is with the Founders and not me.

Again you're free to leave anytime you want but try to steal my liberty or wage war against me or my government and it's my God given right to put that shit down.

 

[America 1st]

Also the founding fathers:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Yea we've already covered where the Declaration of Independence doesn't trump the Constitution but it's cute you're trying to act like it does.

If the Founders wanted those words in the Constitution they would have included them.

What's your issues with the Founders? Seems pretty unamerican to want tk overthrown or break up their government if you ask me.

 

[SOTrojan]

It's just your opinion that's it's being violated.

Even if your rights were being violated, which you would need to prove in a judicial court or through convention of the states, their is no mechanism in the Constitution that allows for the violent overthrow of government or it's abolishment.

The second amendment doesn't say anything about using arms to abolish government. It's simply says they are "necessary to the security of a free state" which could easily be interpreted to mean the people have a right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from violent attacks against the state.

The interpretation that the "security of a free state" it to keep people protected from their own government is simply one interpretation and relies on the premise that the people of the country aren't free (which would be a mighty tough case to prove and still wouldn't allow for the abolishment of government but only the retention of 'freedom').

Why do you keep pointing to the Constitution? It’s not a legal question.

If the government becomes oppressive, so that it loses legitimacy, am I going to say oh well, there is no recourse, because the Constitution doesn’t provide for it? Of course not. The legal process of the United States becomes irrelevant at that point.

 

[SOTrojan]

Yea we've already covered where the Declaration of Independence doesn't trump the Constitution but it's cute you're trying to act like it does.

If the Founders wanted those words in the Constitution they would have included them.

What's your issues with the Founders? Seems pretty unamerican to want tk overthrown or break up their government if you ask me.

They would want to break it up if it became oppressive.

 

[America 1st]

Why do you keep pointing to the Constitution? It’s not a legal question.

If the government becomes oppressive, so that it loses legitimacy, am I going to say oh well, there is no recourse, because the Constitution doesn’t provide for it? Of course not. The legal process of the United States becomes irrelevant at that point.

Because it's the law of the land.

Just because you think something is irrelevant doesn't make it so or trump the will of We The People.

They would want to break it up if it became oppressive.

That's just your opinion.

Get the public sentiment to ratify a new amendment or hold a a Constitutional Convention where 3/4 of states ratify if you believe so strongly about it.

Until then the law of the land stands.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Good progress being made on the M1A1:

 

[preshlock]

I'm not knowledgeable about this. But how difficult would it be for counties to leave one state for another? Or for states to break apart. I know there has been talk in California about doing this for a long time. Also a couple of counties in Oregon are at least talking about going to Idaho.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Good progress being made on the M1A1:

By the way, this is a great fictional book that centers around the US army and the M1A1 tanks in a hypothetical WWIII in Europe in the mid 80s. It is a very good book. There is lots of tanks getting hit by high speed projectiles and catching fire. There are no baby changing stations on the tanks unfortunately or pregnant tank commanders. That is the one negative of the book.

 

[SOTrojan]

Because it's the law of the land.

Just because you think something is irrelevant doesn't make it so or trump the will of We The People.


That's just your opinion.

Get the public sentiment to ratify a new amendment or hold a a Constitutional Convention where 3/4 of states ratify if you believe so strongly about it.

Until then the law of the land stands.

Everything you have said other than quotations is just your opinion. No one needs to amend the Constitution to secede. If they want to secede they do it. They’d be declaring themselves no longer bound by the law of the land. I may have missed it in history class, but I don’t believe the founders of the United States got laws passed in the British Parliment allowing them to leave before they declared their independence.

 

[America 1st]

Everything gbyou have said is just your opinion. No one needs to amend the Constitution to secede. If they want to secede they do it.

Other than all the pieces of the Constitution I've quoted and the basic legal principles I've explained...

If people want to secede they're welcome to try again, even after we fought a war and settled this on top of what the Constitution says, we'll stop you from doing that with every resource available to us as US citizens including the US military's vast resources.

 

[AgEngDawg]

Other than all the pieces of the Constitution I've quoted and the basic legal principles I've explained...

If people want to secede they're welcome to try again, even after we fought a war and settled this on top of what the Constitution says, we'll stop you from doing that with every resource available to us as US citizens including the US military's vast resources.

The US military record has not been good since 1975.

 

[SOTrojan]

Other than all the pieces of the Constitution I've quoted and the basic legal principles I've explained...

If people want to secede they're welcome to try again, even after we fought a war and settled this on top of what the Constitution says, we'll stop you from doing that with every resource available to us as US citizens including the US military's vast resources.

I had already revised my post to note “other than quotations.” You haven’t “explained any principles of law” that aren’t just your opinion. That’s also all that the SCOTUS does - it issues its collective opinions, which are frequently the subject of disagreement among the various justices.

 

[BigBucnNole]

I'm not knowledgeable about this. But how difficult would it be for counties to leave one state for another? Or for states to break apart. I know there has been talk in California about doing this for a long time. Also a couple of counties in Oregon are at least talking about going to Idaho.

Counties have virtually no rights. Everything is at the privilege of the state government.

 

[Chief_Trojan]

Mareeeeeeeeeeeens, amirite?

 

[America 1st]

I had already revised my post to note “other than quotations.” You haven’t “explained any principles of law” that aren’t just your opinion. That’s also all that the SCOTUS does - it issues its collective opinions, which are frequently the subject of disagreement among the various justices.

 

[AgEngDawg]

 

[AgEngDawg]

BTW, they should refilm Band of Brothers with trans actors.