Scott Lloyd Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 The Freedom of Speech argument is silly on its face. We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Not to destroy that government. There is no freedom of speech to advocate treason.Or to shout "Fire!" in a crowed theater. Or to commit slander or libel. Or to disrupt a meeting held by a public or private body. Or to trespass on private property to stand on a soapbox and shout through a bullhorn.The guarantee of freedom of speech is not absolute. It cannot be. This should be obvious from a moment's reflection. 1
Nathair/|\ Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.'" -Thomas Jefferson 1
sethpayne Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 Isnt signing a petition to separate from the government anathema to being subject to government?I don't think so, at least in this case.These petitions are intended as a form of protest and thus, amount to political expression. I would be surprised if the majority of those who sign the petitions take the idea seriously. If so, they just need to remember that we have congressional elections every 2 years and will go through the painful process of a Presidential election starting shortly after the next election cycle in 2014. This time it will be worse because *both* parties will run primaries!
Darren10 Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 The Freedom of Speech argument is silly on its face. We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Not to destroy that government. There is no freedom of speech to advocate treason.We absolutely have the right to destroy the government. We do not have theright to take up arms against her but we may indeed excercise our rights to destroy her. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) We absolutely have the right to destroy the government. We do not have theright to take up arms against her but we may indeed excercise our rights to destroy her.If by "government" you mean the political party, regime or administration currently in office, and if by "destroy" you mean vote it out of office, you are correct. Edited November 16, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.'" -Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution.
blackstrap Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) If a state,say Alaska,decides to separate from the union,how does that "destroy" the federal government? It just transfers governing authority to a different body. The federal jurisdiction may be somewhat smaller but no different than it was before Alaska joined.Where is the 'destruction'? Change yes,obliteration no. Edited November 16, 2012 by blackstrap
Duncan Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 If a state,say Alaska,decides to separate from the union,how does that "destroy" the federal government? It just transfers governing authority to a different body. The federal jurisdiction may be somewhat smaller but no different than it was before Alaska joined.Where is the 'destruction'? Change yes,obliteration no.Canada doesn't want Alaska, in case anyone they were thinking of leaving! But maybe we can trade BC for future US considerations
halconero Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Canada doesn't want Alaska, in case anyone they were thinking of leaving! But maybe we can trade BC for future US considerations Rep lost.
Duncan Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Rep lost.i'll get it back-we'll have supper together-prepare to be thoroughly amazed! Edited November 17, 2012 by Duncan
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/alabama-secessionist-blames-government-closi
TAO Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution.This doesn't matter much. What are our 'inalienable rights' so to say? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Decleration of Independence is as much bound to our law as the US Consitution, indeed it is.
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) TAO:No it isn't. We are no longer in rebellion against the British crown. The Treaty of Paris ended that conflict. We are a separate country.The US Constitution supersedes BOTH the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. Edited November 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Saints Alive Posted November 17, 2012 Author Posted November 17, 2012 I don't see how asking that a state be allowed to peacefully secede is an act of treason.
TAO Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 TAO:No it isn't. We are no longer in rebellion against the British crown. The Treaty of Paris ended that conflict. We are a separate country.The US Constitution supersedes BOTH the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.Well then we must not have unalienable rights to life liberty, and happiness?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 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...that is not sedition.
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I don't see how asking that a state be allowed to peacefully secede is an act of treason.Agreed. It is just stupid not treason. The secession movement is the conservative equivalent of the "i am moving to Canada" whining that followed Bush's victory. I expect the followthrough would also be the same. I did chuckle at the petition to deport everyone signing a seession petition and the petition asking the President to work towards impeaching himself. I also read one fascinating one demanding a refund for a college education if you could not get a job. I admit that based on the text of the petition the writer may have had a case against their English professors,
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Well then we must not have unalienable rights to life liberty, and happiness?We don't. Life and Liberty are circumcised by law, and can be taken away by Congress and/or the Courts. Plus if you are in the military it can order you to do something that will result in your death. Like storm a beach in Normandy France. We've never had the right to happiness only its pursuit.
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 trea·son (trzn)n.1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 trea·son (trzn)n.1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.---The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 3, Section 3 1
slamarwi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 No, it is simply letting your voice be heard.
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.---The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 3, Section 3"or in adhering to their Enemies". Enemies can be foreign or domestic.
Saints Alive Posted November 18, 2012 Author Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) "or in adhering to their Enemies". Enemies can be foreign or domestic.I still don't see how a state, (or it's citizens in this case) dissatisfied with its governments proformance, requesting peaceful separation can be considered enemies, or treasonous. By your definition anyone who voted against Obama would be traitors as well. Edited November 18, 2012 by Saints Alive 3
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I still don't see how a state, (or it's citizens in this case) dissatisfied with its governments proformance, requesting peaceful separation can be considered enemies, or treasonous. By your definition anyone who voted against Obama would be traitors as well.That petition asks the federal government to dissolve itself. A prescription for anarchy.That discussion ended in the1830's with the Nullification attempts by several states. In the 1860's it was unpeacefully settled by the American Civil War. Our coinage, and motto both reference to "out of many one", not "out of many still many". Our Pledge of Allegiance speaks to our indivisibility. Further how far down the line would that extend. Could a county secede from a state? How about a city or neighborhood. Again that is a prescription for anarchy not government. Voting is a right of citizenship. Vote for whomever you want. BTW I voted against Obama, and voted for Jill Stein.
bluebell Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 That petition asks the federal government to dissolve itself. A prescription for anarchy.Which petition asks that?
Recommended Posts