NationStates Jolt Archive

No you're not. You've demonstrated on occassions to numerous to count that you only care what the constitution says when it agrees with you.

Actually no that is not true Neo Art. If you actually knew me, you would see how wrong this statement truly is.

"Why do you feel the need to type in huge f***ing letters for your first line? It's quite obnoxious."

It's called a headline. Ever hear of them? Ask around as to their purpose.

I love how you keep throwing the word carpet bombing out. First off all, no one is advocating carbet bombing California. I may not like San Francisco but do I want to see it destroyed? No. You can effectively cut off SF through a variety of means. So what are you refering to when you mean carbet bomb them?

oh, i'm sorry. so you intend to cause starvation and misery and plague and death through siege warfare in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, then. that makes it all better.

As to everything else, yes. As to the last question, we did it with the South in 1865 and we can do it again. Only this time, make sure it is done correctly and not haphazardly as the South's reconstruction was done.

you are clearly using the words 'justice', 'tranquility', 'general welfare', and 'liberty' in ways which i am unfamiliar. would you care to attempt to explain your usage to me?

If you want to live by one of country's documents, at least choose a better one:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Would not fly in the US and you and I both know it.

Again, non-sequitur. If it really was about slavery, Lincoln would have accepted this proposal and stopped the killing.

I would love to see a link to this.

Here. (http://www.civilwarhome.com/Lincoln%20at%20Hampton%20Roads.htm) Lincoln said again and again that he would accept nothing less than a re-uniting of the nation. The fact that he seemed to overlook the fact that the South would be able to block any anti-slavery amendment did not seem to phase him (after all, he supported the Hyde Amendment.) And if you want, you can read Alexander H. Stephen's Constitutional View of the War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results. His account is well-documented, and echoes the historical view of the Hampton Roads Conference.

And you have not given me any reason that it does not have any moral power. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Firstly, you cannot prove a negative; you have to prove to me that it *does* have moral power. So the obligation is upon you. And let's set aside the fact that you are still making a non-sequitur fallacy. Seeing how the Constitution is the dictates of imperfect men, not God, and that these men were tied to those who wished to politically manipulate the economy through easy money, public speculation and favoritism, as I have repeated again and again, I would say that it would be a lie to say I have done nothing to show how it has no moral power. You, however, are stuck repeating "IT'S THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!" over and over again without any justification on how this is a just law.

Here are some quotes for you to munch on:

I have no idea what you're trying to prove with the empty words of liars and charlatans. They can say anything they want, but it does not make their words any more true. They can say 'there is no right to secession', but it does not make it true. They can inspire fear of foreign invasion, but fear is not reason.

I am a constitutionalist and I abide by it.

Then you abide by worship of a piece of paper.

I live my life on this and any state that wants to secede from the Union is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Those words are the greatest farce of American history. The Founding Fathers said liberty, but they wrote for the tyranny of centralism. And now we have a police state, global empire, and massive bureaucracy to prove it.

If you want to live by one of country's documents, at least choose a better one:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

You do realize that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document right?

You do realize that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document right?

did he claim it is?

did he claim it is?

He did say to live by. That means a legal document. The DoI is not a legal document but a declaration against the British Crown.

He did say to live by. That means a legal document.

demonstrate this point for me

Without legal documents, there would be uncertainty of what people can and can not do.

He did say to live by. That means a legal document.

Aren't you a Christian?

Aren't you a Christian?

And that has what to do with this? Oh yea..nothing.

Here. (http://www.civilwarhome.com/Lincoln%20at%20Hampton%20Roads.htm)

Um... nowhere there does it state that the South proposed emancipating the slaves.

The fact that he seemed to overlook the fact that the South would be able to block any anti-slavery amendment did not seem to phase him

...because, your link indicates, he thought slavery finished.

And that has what to do with this? Oh yea..nothing.

Generally, Christians attempt to live by Christian principles as laid out in their interpretation of the Bible... which is not a legal document.

Generally, Christians attempt to live by Christian principles as laid out in their interpretation of the Bible... which is not a legal document.

It is also a personal thing as well. Something that they choose to live by. With what we are dealing with, it has nothing to do with it.

It is also a personal thing as well. Something that they choose to live by. With what we are dealing with, it has nothing to do with it.

So people live by the bible, as you just said, huh? Well....

He did say to live by. That means a legal document.

Sooo....the bible is a legal document?

Sooo....the bible is a legal document?

No it is not a legal document. It is a book that many governments throughout time enshrined into their laws.

It is also a personal thing as well. Something that they choose to live by.

That is not essential to the concept, nor is it actually true of hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide, who base their political opinions in part or in whole on their interpretation of the Bible.

Morality (including such questions as "is there a right to secession?") is not a matter of consulting legal documents. Your precious Constitution agrees with me, for what it's worth. Pay attention to the language of the Bill of Rights, which prohibits the government from "abridging", "infring", and "violat[ing]" [I]pre-existing rights.

That is not essential to the concept, nor is it actually true of hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide, who base their political opinions in part or in whole on their interpretation of the Bible.

As I said...its their choice. I vote my conscience outside of religion.

Morality (including such questions as "is there a right to secession?") is not a matter of consulting legal documents. Your precious Constitution agrees with me, for what it's worth. Pay attention to the language of the Bill of Rights, which prohibits the government from "abridging", "infring", and "violat[ing]" [I]pre-existing rights.

And hence why we have a court that can rule government decisions as well as laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.

No it is not a legal document.

and therefore...?

As I said...its their choice. I vote my conscience outside of religion.

So fucking what?

You have been asserting that living by a document requires that the document is a legal document. I brought up the fact that plenty of people live by the Bible, which is not a legal document. So you backpedaled and said that that was just a "personal thing", and therefore irrelevant. I brought up the fact that it very often isn't a "personal thing" at all, that to the contrary plenty of people worldwide use it as a source for their political opinions--just as I was suggesting for the Declaration--and you give me this completely irrelevant reply?

And hence why we have a court that can rule government decisions as well as laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.

But the Constitution does not grant us our rights. It only protects some of them. So even if the courts perfectly enforce the Constitution (as they do not), the mere fact that the courts don't block a certain policy doesn't mean that that policy is legitimate.

If we need not depend on the Constitution for our moral decisions, we need not depend on the courts that protect and interpret it either.

Without legal documents, there would be uncertainty of what people can and can not do.

Wrong. Customary law needed no legal documents like constitutions, but it got along fine. In fact, the colonies had a variety of customary laws in place before the Constitution usurped their place.

Um... nowhere there does it state that the South proposed emancipating the slaves.

No, but the book I referenced said that the Confederate delegation agreed to emancipate their slaves if they were allowed political seperation.

...because, your link indicates, he thought slavery finished.

But you seem to forget that if the South re-entered the Union, they could shoot down any anti-slavery amendment. Besides, Lincoln was the one who pushed for the Hyde amendment which would have enshrined slavery.

Actually, California loses money by being in the US.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

And what, independence should be based solely on monetary purposes? Under that same reasoning, Los Angeles should separate from the rest of California. I'm sure LA locals don't want to see their precious tax money end up in San Diego.

The purpose of a nation is to bond together for a common good, help each other out basically. How ironic would it then be for a nation to be formed breaking such purpose?

Under that same reasoning, Los Angeles should separate from the rest of California.

Sounds good to me.

But you seem to forget that if the South re-entered the Union, they could shoot down any anti-slavery amendment.

Well, that would depend on the nature of the arrangement, and according to your link Seward said as much.

Besides, Lincoln was the one who pushed for the Hyde amendment which would have enshrined slavery.

Do you mean the Corwin Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment)?

Lincoln always maintained that he had no intention pre-secession of interfering with slavery in the Southern states. But that's immaterial, because he did have intentions of restricting slavery's westward expansion, and that was the crucial element: the South judged, probably rightly, that such restrictions would be the beginning of the end for slavery, and said as much.

And what, independence should be based solely on monetary purposes?

If I'd meant that I would have said it.

The purpose of a nation is to bond together for a common good, help each other out basically. How ironic would it then be for a nation to be formed breaking such purpose?

So... what exactly are you trying to say?

And what, independence should be based solely on monetary purposes?

way to follow the flow of conversation, chief.

As a fan of Ernest Callenbach's Ecotopia series & Kim Stanley Robinson's Three California's Trilogy I would love to see California, Oregon and Washington state secede to form a new nation. This of course would be a green state that would completly differ from the rest of the USA.

Even now with the rise of fascism in here and the gradual removal of constitional rights.

So you'd happily kill and die to impose your country's rule upon a people who clearly don't want it?

Um... interesting....

Sickening, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905

Ah. Once again, the American educational system leaves something to be desired. :rolleyes:

Thank you.

Sounds good to me.

I wish that would happen.

I wish that would happen.

Me too, my friend. Me too.

Sickening, isn't it?

Oh, no. We must sacrifice others in order to appease the demands of the Magic Piece of Paper, or the apocalypse will be upon us. But it's for their own good, anyway, because people have to be forced to be free.

Oh, no. We must sacrifice others in order to appease the demands of the Magic Piece of Paper, or the apocalypse will be upon us. But it's for their own good, anyway, because people have to be forced to be free.

I cannot help but by reminded of the worship of the golden calf that so angered Moses. :p

Ah. Once again, the American educational system leaves something to be desired. :rolleyes:

Thank you.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CAMB/27640~No-Stupid-Questions-Posters.jpg

Hooray for public education!

I cannot help but by reminded of the worship of the golden calf that so angered Moses. :p

Hey, didn't God say something about "Thou shalt not murder," or something to that effect?

Hey, didn't God say something about "Thou shalt not murder," or something to that effect?

That does ring a bell...

Well, that would depend on the nature of the arrangement, and according to your link Seward said as much.

But Stephens said that Lincoln would have allowed the South to return and black any anti-slavery amendment.

Do you mean the Corwin Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment)?

Yes. Sorry.

Lincoln always maintained that he had no intention pre-secession of interfering with slavery in the Southern states. But that's immaterial, because he did have intentions of restricting slavery's westward expansion, and that was the crucial element: the South judged, probably rightly, that such restrictions would be the beginning of the end for slavery, and said as much.

And then he hoped to be able to ship all the blacks to Liberia (a position of the Ku Klux Klan, ironically), so that whites wouldn't have had to compete with cheap black labor or homesteaders in the West. And I still think it is despicable that he would have allowed slavery at all; if he really wanted to end slavery, he would have had the North secede from the Union so that they could freely disobey any fugitive slave laws. But that would get in the way of tarriff collection, pork-barrel spending and favors to banks, which his party was founded upon.

Edit: Or let the South go but make them manumit their slaves. But that would also go against his imbedded economic interests.

Brother...

Laws are all well and good, but the truth of the matter is that sometimes might does make right. If California seceded and could actually defend itself against all attacks, all the laws in the world would mean jack shit. However, one of the cornerstones of civilization is a set of laws by which we all agree to govern ourselves by, hence the foundation of legitimacy for the US Constitution.

That being said, if Cali decided to try and break away, I'd laugh my ass for for half an hour, enlist/raise Unionist forces and bring Roman peace to Berkley.

the truth of the matter is that sometimes might does make right.

argument?

argument?

Can there be one? The very nature of argumentation precludes the notion that might makes right.