bluebell 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.They aren't.That's why the U.S. isn't prosecuting any of the signees of those petitions for treason.
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Which petition asks that?It is the petition for secession.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 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?Seems to be middle America...mostly South, we have never gotten over "the war of Northern Aggression".
Saints Alive Posted November 18, 2012 Author Posted November 18, 2012 Seems to be middle America...mostly South, we have never gotten over "the war of Northern Aggression". all of the states that got the needed 25000 votes went to Romney with the exception of Florida.
bluebell Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 It is the petition for secession.I think there are 50 such petitions (since all 50 states now have their own), but i haven't read any from anyone in any state that asks the federal government to dissolve itself. I thought maybe i missed one.It seems like all are just fine with the federal government carrying on like usual, but without them. 3
TAO Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 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.Well then why do they use them in court cases?They are viewed as much as rights as our other rights are (like freedom of speech). Of course they can be circumcised, but so can every one of our other rights.This is why The Decleration of Independence is viewed as nearly a high a legal document as the Constiutition and the Bill of Rights.
TAO Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 It is the petition for secession.Nah, the petition asks for the government to remove it's prescense from X area, not dissolve completely, right?
Saints Alive Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 Nah, the petition asks for the government to remove it's prescense from X area, not dissolve completely, right?That's right. They generally read as follows "petition to allow the state of xxxxxx to peacefully secede"
thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Well then why do they use them in court cases?They are viewed as much as rights as our other rights are (like freedom of speech). Of course they can be circumcised, but so can every one of our other rights.This is why The Decleration of Independence is viewed as nearly a high a legal document as the Constiutition and the Bill of Rights.No you can't and no they use neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Articles of Confederation in court cases. The US Constitution supersedes both. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.No. The Declaration of Independence gives no such circumscription by law.Article 6 of US Constitution: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.No. We are no longer at war with(read rebelling against) the British crown. The Treaty of Paris ended that conflict.Freedom of Speech is in the US Constitution. Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That's right. They generally read as follows "petition to allow the state of xxxxxx to peacefully secede"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it.The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. A more extreme assertion of state sovereignty is the related action of secession, by which a state terminates its political affiliation with the Union.The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts. In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent desegregation of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.Any attempt at secession is an ACT of TREASON.http://www.netplaces.com/american-civil-war/causes-of-the-civil-war/secession.htm
bluebell Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Any attempt at secession is an ACT of TREASON.http://www.netplaces...r/secession.htmBut requesting to peacefully secceed is not. 2
thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 bluebell:A distinction without a difference. See Nullification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
bluebell Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 bluebell:A distinction without a difference. See Nullification. http://en.wikipedia....nia_ResolutionsNo, it's not TTS. If it were, then all those people who have signed those petitions would be arrested for treason. The reason they haven't been/aren't being arrested is because what they are doing IS NOT TREASON. It doesn't matter what wiki or anyone else says. It doesn't matter what you think about it. The law says it's o.k.. Nothing else matters. There is no link you can put up and no way to voice your opinion that will change that plain fact. 1
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 No, it's not TTS. If it were, then all those people who have signed those petitions would be arrested for treason. The reason they haven't been/aren't being arrested is because what they are doing IS NOT TREASON. It doesn't matter what wiki or anyone else says. It doesn't matter what you think about it. The law says it's o.k.. Nothing else matters. There is no link you can put up and no way to voice your opinion that will change that plain fact. No, the reason they have not been arrested is that they are not taken seriously and rightly so.
bluebell Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 No, the reason they have not been arrested is that they are not taken seriously and rightly so.Exactly. All they've done is sign an online petition asking the government to let their states secceed. There is no way to take that seriously. It is what it is-and nothing more than that.If it become something different, something the government felt was treasonous, then i'm sure they'd react accordingly. 1
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 No, it is simply letting your voice be heard.Some people's voices no one should bother to hear.
thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Facts matter. I'm really not given into hyperbole. Secession even as a joke is serious business, and nothing to laugh at. The cow lazing about in an open field is the same angry bull that is charging at you, and the difference can come really quickly. The US Civil War claimed more American lives than all the other wars the US has fought in combined.
TAO Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 No you can't and no they use neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Articles of Confederation in court cases. The US Constitution supersedes both. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.Sure the Consitution supercedes both, but just so you know, the Decleration of Independence has been used in court cases before: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-503077.html. So it is a legal document. It just has varying degress of usefulness.No. The Declaration of Independence gives no such circumscription by law.Not the declaration. All rights can be circumcised. No right is supreme.Article 6 of US Constitution: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.And yet I'm sure Great Britain had such a law. That didn't stop us from declaring our independence did it?No. We are no longer at war with(read rebelling against) the British crown. The Treaty of Paris ended that conflict.Doesn't matter. My point is simple; we base our American philosophy on the enlightenment. That is, when a government is being tyranical, we have a right and duty to overthrow it, right? Now, I don't really think the govenrment is being tyranical rigth now, but it is not very smart to dismiss seccession attempts just because they will be illegal. All seceession attempts not liked by the home country will be illegal in some regards. Including our own in the Revolutionay War.So you should realize, justificaiton of secession is built into the foundations of the country we founded. Secession could be justified, just as we justified our own.Freedom of Speech is in the US Constitution. Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Shouting fire in a crowded theatre? Hate speech? Libel? Slander? Etc. The freedom of speech isn't ultimate.
Saints Alive Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 That is why the key words in these petitions is PEACEFULLY. No one is asking for another civil war, or any sort of armed conflict. The national guard is so intwined with the federal Army that it would be nearly impossible for a state to violently secede anyway. We will not see another civil war even if the petitions were serious.
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Facts matter. I'm really not given into hyperbole. Secession even as a joke is serious business, and nothing to laugh at. The cow lazing about in an open field is the same angry bull that is charging at you, and the difference can come really quickly. The US Civil War claimed more American lives than all the other wars the US has fought in combined.I laugh at it. The difference is that in the 1800s secession talk was bandied about by Senators and governors. Now it is just bandied about by cranks who no one seriously listens to. One was serious and the other is a joke. We should not dignify these idiots by treating them seriously. They should be either mocked or ignored.
Saints Alive Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 I laugh at it. The difference is that in the 1800s secession talk was bandied about by Senators and governors. Now it is just bandied about by cranks who no one seriously listens to. One was serious and the other is a joke. We should not dignify these idiots by treating them seriously. They should be either mocked or ignored.Careful there... you know what they say about people in glass houses. Many "Christians" and Atheists place Mormons in the same "idiot" category.
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Careful there... you know what they say about people in glass houses. Many "Christians" and Atheists place Mormons in the same "idiot" category.And my calling secessionists idiots will not increase the number of them doing so so I will not worry about it.Even if it did it would not change the truth: the secessionists are idiots. Not all the signers are necessarily idiots as I am sure some signed the petition just to see how the White House would respond. That is why I signed the petition to abolish the judicial system and replace it with motorcycle-riding Judges who act as judge, jury, and executioner aka Judge Dredd-style justice. I want to see what some (hopefully witty) staffer will say in response.
thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Careful there... you know what they say about people in glass houses. Many "Christians" and Atheists place Mormons in the same "idiot" category.Heck. We all do idiotic things. 1
Saints Alive Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 Heck. We all do idiotic things. I always wondered why I spent so much time on here...
thesometimesaint Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Sure the Consitution supercedes both, but just so you know, the Decleration of Independence has been used in court cases before: http://boards.straig...p/t-503077.html. So it is a legal document. It just has varying degress of usefulness.Not the declaration. All rights can be circumcised. No right is supreme.And yet I'm sure Great Britain had such a law. That didn't stop us from declaring our independence did it?Doesn't matter. My point is simple; we base our American philosophy on the enlightenment. That is, when a government is being tyranical, we have a right and duty to overthrow it, right? Now, I don't really think the govenrment is being tyranical rigth now, but it is not very smart to dismiss seccession attempts just because they will be illegal. All seceession attempts not liked by the home country will be illegal in some regards. Including our own in the Revolutionay War.So you should realize, justificaiton of secession is built into the foundations of the country we founded. Secession could be justified, just as we justified our own.Shouting fire in a crowded theatre? Hate speech? Libel? Slander? Etc. The freedom of speech isn't ultimate.Got to go do some work. Maybe later.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) The Bill of Rights were merely written assurances of the intent of the Constitution. Their passage was promised upon ratification and so they were. This helped to assure the sates against federal dominance. Even without the 10th Amendment, it was understood that the states stood sovereign to the federal government. Our government was founded on that very federalist principle.The states have never been ultimately sovereign to the federal government. That's why they added the Supremacy clause, in Article VI of the original Constitution, which stated that federal law, the Constitution, and federal treaties are "the supreme law of the land." Even though the sovereignty is shared, federal sovereignty has always trumped state sovereignty when the two are in conflict. And the balance of sovereignty shifted even further toward the federal government with the 14th Amendment. Edited November 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Recommended Posts