Stars and Bars

[snyprrr]

Does anyone else see this as a massive distraction to keep us from the TPP? hmmm?

let's look up the word "appeasement"....

[snyprrr]

Amazon, Ebay, et al, should also ban Che stuff, Chinese flag, gay pride flag, etc.,... juuuuuust to be fair,.... no?

Bolshevik Family Values



also... wait til they stage a bombing at a gay pride event,... done by,... guess who??,tee hee.... a Chriiiiistian. White. Male. (blonde hair/blue eyes no longer need- just get a Jhooo- since no one seems to be able to tell the dif anymore)


or... am I not indeed free to offend your delicate sensibilities? oh my, the drama indeed



Go ahead- don't look up the guy who started this flag flap, and see who this Mr. "White" is.... mm???


10 Planks of Communism


Rules for Radicals #12


... and everyone believes it and plays along....




So interesting how detached the members of the victims' families were on TV.... seeing they'll all get a cool $3million for their acting skillz troubles. And, HAVE YOU SEEN the arrest video.... whaaaa???... and Burger King to boot??

And yet there's door-to-door searches for the two escaped felons...


DOES ANYONE EVEN ASK AAAANY QUESTIONS ANYMORE... OR DO YOU JUUUUST BELIEVE WHAT MSNBC-ABC-CNN TELL YOU? (nO, THE MEDIA WATCHDOGS WOULD NEVER BE IN COLLUSION WITH THE GOVERNMENT to try to systematically dismantle the Bill of Rights, tetc.,...)



"UN ready to step in and occupy USA"......"after the guns have been confiscated"....





meanwhile- stars n bars on B. Clinton's 1996 campaign in the south.... yaaawn....








"I didn't know I was against _________ until the TV told me I was"



yaaawn yaaawn

[Florestan]

The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general — not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man — although that was not the motive of the war — as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle — but only of degree — between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ >from each other only in degree.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.

[Florestan]

Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this — that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."

Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people — or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) — could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.

All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one — when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.

[Ken B]

I seem to remember seeing this somewhere, but I was not focused on it and did not participate (at least I don't think I did - did I?), so I'll bite (not knowing or remembering any previous context).

This is not as simple as yes or no. But let's look at the facts. There is no article (to my knowledge) that outright talks about secession in this context (meaning using that word). Article 1, Section 10 comes closest when it says that no state will enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation. So I guess this is the simple answer to your question 1. This pretty much kills secession.  That said, it has long been debated with some points for and against (and there are numerous figures from American history that will state quite different views, especially concerning the adoption of the Constitution). My own view is that when the states ratified the Constitution, they were giving up many rights forever (including secession). This was all later decided by the Civil War and some landmark Supreme Court cases (perhaps someone can remember the names - it involved Texas), so it is sort of a moot point to some degree. There has also long been a fundamental question of whether the States give away only those rights/issues specified in the Constitution or items not laid out there are to be assumed by the Federal Government. I also lean to the latter on this one. But this is another topic with rich discussions.

As to your second question, no. Though here too, the confederacy was perhaps not quite a democracy either. The confederate constitution mostly lifted the US Constitution, though it interestingly took away rights from the States in some areas (that were granted under the US Constitution). It also granted additional rights. The 'election' was not a true election, but each state sent delegates to a convention and the new president was elected in this way. Jefferson Davis was elected unanimously by all six states that assembled at that time (with Texas an observer). There was another election later in 1861 that confirmed him, but he ran unopposed.

I don't have time to read that article at the moment, but I read a little to get the gist of it. I disagree with the way he calls the union a contract. The way he makes it sound is that I can cancel at any time and retain my autonomy (like cancelling my phone or changing gardeners). As I mentioned, I have a different view of the rights given up when they joined.

Constitutional history and law is a fascinating area with more gray area than black or white.

This is excellent.

Human beings being limited no framer could anticipate every contingency. Those not explictly mentioned must be dealt with by reasoning. Does the constitution mention flag burning, or political contributions, or Japanese internment, or theTVA? Even Marbury is based on a structural argument not a single explocit clause. So Andrei's demand is obtuse. He should demand not a clause but a clause or a line of reasoning, just like eveyone else does in every situation. Even strict constructionists apply freedom of the press to TV journalism, and TV is nowhere in the document. Interpretation and reasoning cannot be avoided.

Next as to monarchy. Once seceded the feds would be unable to prohibit the independent Alabama from becoming a monarchy; that is a reductio argument against secession. There are other rights, such as those in amendments. Once secession is granted they cannot be enforced. The right to representation in the federal house is one such for example.

I don,t want a slaughter Andrei. If you are teduced to demanding a clause not an argument you are dead on arrival.

[Florestan]

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

[Florestan]

Human beings being limited no framer could anticipate every contingency. Those not explictly mentioned must be dealt with by reasoning.

That´s exactly what Lysander Spooner has done: by legal and common-sense reasoning he has destroyed not only the US Constitution, but each and every constitution everywhere, past, present and future.

And no, as long as you won´t read his whole tract I am not going to enter into any further debate. 

[Todd]

That´s exactly what Lysander Spooner has done: by legal and common-sense reasoning he has destroyed not only the US Constitution, but each and every constitution everywhere, past, present and future.

He did nothing of the sort. 

[Florestan]

He did nothing of the sort.

And no, as long as you won´t read his whole tract I am not going to enter into any further debate. 

[Ken B]

Frankly Andrei quoting this old stuff from Spooner ought to embarass you. That quote for instance "proves" too much. If you accept the argument then there is no law. That's why it is, to put it kindly, a silly argument. You don't believe it yourself. You would ban abortion, murder, rape, theft, by law. Will you apply that law to those who never agreed to be bound by it? Take it up with Mr Spooner.
You have argued on this forum that only cops should have guns and that guns should be illegal. Who signed the law enacting cops? Can anyone who didn't sign claim exemption?
You support monarchy.  Where's your list of signatories?

And btw Andrei, I would be surprised if Todd has not read Spooner, as have I. He is popular in some of the fetid neo confederate fever swamps of the American anarchocapitalist movement. He gets trotted out endlessly.

[Todd]

And no, as long as you won´t read his whole tract I am not going to enter into any further debate.

OK. 

[Florestan]

Frankly Andrei quoting this old stuff from Spooner ought to embarass you. That quote for instance "proves" too much. If you accept the argument then there is no law. That's why it is, to put it kindly, a silly argument. You don't believe it yourself. You would ban abortion, murder, rape, theft, by law. Will you apply that law to those who never agreed to be bound by it? Take it up with Mr Spooner.
You have argued on this forum that only cops should have guns and that guns should be illegal. Who signed the law enacting cops? Can anyone who didn't sign claim exemption?

Spooner is absolutely right and spot on on everything he says. We all support this or that form of government, but are we willing to take the responsibility for it? Would you sign, with full name, social security number and postal address, a paper that would authorize the US Government you have voted for, or not voted for but you still recognize as legitimate, to do anything that that government deems fit to do, and that you be held personally responsible for the result of the said government´s actions? Yes or No.

You support monarchy.  Where's your list of signatories?

Well, as different from the US Republican Constitution, the Romanian monarchical consttitution was twice subjected to a nationwide referendum, and each time it was adopted by a vast majority.

Now, either two nationwide (secret ballot) referenda represent the will of the people, or they don´t. Pick your choice.

[Florestan]

OK.

Glad we agree. 

[Todd]

Spooner is absolutely right and spot on on everything he says.

Incorrect. 

[Florestan]

Incorrect.

Ok. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

We can remove the flag from the show. We have the technology...

And beep/black out the lips of anyone uttering the words "General Lee"!

[ibanezmonster]

Every time I see that flag (which is very often around here), I say to myself in my exaggerated redneck voice, "But in our minds, WE won the Civil War. Harr harr."

Eh. It's a bit funnier spoken that typed.

[david johnson]

If you haven't read the volumes of :  Bruce Catton -  Civil War Centennial History, and Shelby Foote - The Civil War, I will not take expressed opinions as having much information behind them.  I'm am surprised at the bigotry I'm noticing here.  Leave the flag alone and let the states decide.

[Karl Henning]

Treason Against Tyranny Is Patriotism

[...] some of the fetid neo confederate fever swamps of the American anarchocapitalist movement.

snypsss, are you gonna sit still for that?

[Florestan]

Ken, I agree that Spooner´s reasoning, if applied to the last consequences, would ultimately destroy any law whatsoever. But if an idea is dangerous, it doesn´t follow that it is also untrue. I have yet to see a solid refutation of Spooner --- and not from the point of view of the social usefulness and practicability of his ideas (they have none) but from the point of view of whether they are true or false.