12Th Aoff And State Succession Petitions?

[Saints Alive]

Background: Over 1 million Americans in all 50states have signed succession petitions on the white house's website.

Question: Does the 12th AofF preclude Mormons from signing these petitions in good conscious?

[blackstrap]

No. The petitions are peaceful .No violence indicated. It is more a way to vent frustration and has happened after many elections. Apparently the Govt must respond only if 25000 + names are attached to a specific petition.

[Saints Alive]

It's not important to this thread but 7 states have reached the 25000 number.

Isnt signing a petition to separate from the government anathema to being subject to government?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No. The petitions are peaceful .No violence indicated. It is more a way to vent frustration and has happened after many elections. Apparently the Govt must respond only if 25000 + names are attached to a specific petition.

Or that is claimed what the Govt will do. I would not hold my breath on that one.

[Storm Rider]

I don't see how it would apply; however, I do think that common sense should apply or at least the simplest understanding of our system of government and elections. It is beyond comprehension how anyone would sign these type of things. Our Union is dependent upon each state to participate. Balkanizing the country does nothing except allow for intolerance, stupidity, and prejudice to reign. Now that I am warmed up I will share my real thoughts.

[Saints Alive]

I don't see how it would apply; however, I do think that common sense should apply or at least the simplest understanding of our system of government and elections. It is beyond comprehension how anyone would sign these type of things. Our Union is dependent upon each state to participate. Balkanizing the country does nothing except allow for intolerance, stupidity, and prejudice to reign. Now that I am warmed up I will share my real thoughts.

So do you think the founding fathers were wrong to separate over taxes that are much lower than the current tax rate?

[Freedom]

So do you think the founding fathers were wrong to separate over taxes that are much lower than the current tax rate?

My understanding was that it had little to do with tax rates. This current fight is just a childish temper tantrum.

[blackstrap]

This is just a 'picadorean' tool to allow the people to release built up pressure so as to keep the 'bull' from going blind and running amok in the crowd.

Edited November 15, 2012 by blackstrap

[Saints Alive]

My understanding was that it had little to do with tax rates. This current fight is just a childish temper tantrum.

Depends on who you ask, some believe it had everything to do with taxes. Most people don't know that the King actually offered the colonies seats in parliament.

In any case, let's please try to keep this focused on how the 12AofF applies to this situation.

[Buckeye]

_{FWIW, there were members of the church that fought for the Confederacy. Here is a link to an Ensign article about one: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/04/the-confederate-officer-and-that-mormon-girl-a-nineteenth-century-romance?lang=eng&query=confederate}

_{I do not support this succession attempt, or the attempt by the Southern States in 1860, but I also can't read the 12th AOF as prohibiting succession, or other severe means of disloyalty, in all circumstances. If that were true, what do we make of the founding fathers?}

[Mark Beesley]

Background: Over 1 million Americans in all 50states have signed succession petitions on the white house's website.

Question: Does the 12th AofF preclude Mormons from signing these petitions in good conscious?

No.

I've changed my mind. See post below.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Saints Alive]

_{If that were true, what do we make of the founding fathers?}

The founding fathers weren't Mormon.

[Mark Beesley]

Apparently the Govt must respond only if 25000 + names are attached to a specific petition.

CFR

I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult. I'm just interested where this comes from. Is it codified in the U.S. Code, and if so, where?

Thanks.

[Saints Alive]

CFR

I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult. I'm just interested where this comes from. Is it codified in the U.S. Code, and if so, where?

Thanks.

It's not legally binding in any form. Its just the claim the whitehouse.org website makes.

[bluebell]

CFR

I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult. I'm just interested where this comes from. Is it codified in the U.S. Code, and if so, where?

Thanks.

Here's an excerpt from an article written on YahooNews about the petitions which addresses this issue (at the time the article was written only 20 states had signed such petitions)

"An article from WKRC quotes a University of Louisville political science professor who explained that these petitions aren't uncommon. Similar petitions were filed following the 2004 and 2008 elections. Still, should the petitions garner 25,000 signatures in a month, they will require an official response from the Obama administration.

From the We the People site:

The ri

ght to pet

ition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it's sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."

[Mark Beesley]

I have changed my mind about whether a Latter-day Saint, in good conscience, could sign a petition seeking to dissolve the United States of America.

From the case of The State of Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1869), Chief Justice Salmon Chase, writing for the majority, stated:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

If we, as Latter-day Saints truly believe that the United States Constitution is divinely inspired, then we must accept that the purposes for which it is established, such as "to form a more perfect union," is the ideal for which we must strive. A union is not created by division. A a union is created with understanding and compromise.

So, at this point, I would have to say that that a faithful Latter-day Saint could not, in good conscience, sign a petition seeking to dissolve the union of the United States of America which God Himself established, and remain faithful to the 12th Article of Faith.

[thesometimesaint]

So do you think the founding fathers were wrong to separate over taxes that are much lower than the current tax rate?

The American Revolutionary War was fought on the proposition that there can be no legitimate taxation without representation in England's Parliament. As Colonists they were represented by the King not Parliament. In effect they were seeking a bigger voice in tax policy. It had nothing to do with the rates.

[ERayR]

Its a way to get your name so the black helicopters can swoop down on you some dark night.

[Mark Beesley]

Here's an excerpt from an article written on YahooNews about the petitions which addresses this issue (at the time the article was written only 20 states had signed such petitions)

"An article from WKRC quotes a University of Louisville political science professor who explained that these petitions aren't uncommon. Similar petitions were filed following the 2004 and 2008 elections. Still, should the petitions garner 25,000 signatures in a month, they will require an official response from the Obama administration.

From the We the People site:

The ri

ght to pet

ition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it's sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."

Thanks. It's apparently an internal White House policy. The threshold used to be 5,000 signatures.

Too bad people take what is essentially a good idea to provide input to the White House on issues of interest (like maybe removing marijuana from the list of controlled substances ), and now use it simply vent with immature, knee-jerk reactionary tripe.

If I were President Obama, I know how I would respond . . . (Think Clint Eastwood and an empty chair.)

[bluebell]

Thanks. It's apparently an internal White House policy. The threshold used to be 5,000 signatures.

Too bad people take what is essentially a good idea to provide input to the White House on issues of interest (like maybe removing marijuana from the list of controlled substances ), and now use it simply vent with immature, knee-jerk reactionary tripe.

If I were President Obama, I know how I would respond . . . (Think Clint Eastwood and an empty chair.)

It's happened a few times, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with party lines. There are idiotic liberals and idiotic conservatives in every state apparently.

I don't agree with the petitions-I don't believe that anyone who knows anything about European history, or civil war history, would ever sign such a thing. But, it doesn't bother me that people vent in such a way. I think all they want Obama to really do is to take their concerns seriously. I don't think that's a bad thing, even if i disagree with the way they are doing it.

[thesometimesaint]

Session is treason. Something no LDS should tolerate

[Darren10]

Session is treason. Something no LDS should tolerate

LDS Temples have "sessions". ; > ). You probably mean "cessation".

Update: oops, it's "secession".

Edited November 15, 2012 by Darren10

[bluebell]

Session is treason. Something no LDS should tolerate

But to petition for secession is not treason. It's fully allowed under the law. Otherwise, there's be hundreds of thousands of people arrested for treason right now.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Temples have "sessions". ; > ). You probably mean "cessation".

My bad. Fumble fingers sticks again.

[thesometimesaint]

But to petition for secession is not treason. It's fully allowed under the law. Otherwise, there's be hundreds of thousands of people arrested for treason right now.

That idea was squashed in the American Civil War with its 600,000+ dead. You remember "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

Matthew 12:25

So yes I would fully support arresting, convicting for treason, and putting these secessionist clowns in prison.