Duncan Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 color me impressed with everyone's knowledge about the United States and the goings on thereof! I bet you could throw a rope around any 10 Canadians and they couldn't come up with half this stuff
TAO Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Well, you don't need to stock up on guns. There number of guns that one possesses is typically a small number, say three: one pistol; two rifles; and one shotgun. That probably constitutes "sufficient for one's needs". Note that Pres. Packer didn't give out any restrictions for ammunition, however. Ammunition serves two purposes: for use in your firearms; and for barter. Potentially, the second might be more useful than the first.Yes.However, I think President Packer was also implying that a second civil war wouldn't be exactly ideal for the church at this moment in time.
Saints Alive Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 That would be the Articles of Confederation the very thing that our Constitution got rid of.http://www.barefootsworld.net/aoc1777.htmlNot quite, the articles of confederation failed to regulate interstate commerce, including currency.
mathonihah Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Because the U.S. is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy, a democratic vote does not have the power to do whatever the people want it to do.I believe it does. Let's suppose 90% of the people of the US came to the conclusion that their interests would be best served by leaving the Union, and dismantling the constitution and the federation; they have the powder to bring it about, and by non-violent or revolutionary means. They will simply elect like-minded candidates to the Senate and Congress, the Presidency of the United States, and ultimately the Supreme Court, who will make the necessary amendments to the Constitution (if need be) to be able to bring about the required change.And I'm not convinced that removing a state from the federal government would destroy the Union. The Union does not seem to depend on the number of states included. We were a Union before Hawaii and Alaska were added. It seems very possible that we would continue to be a Union if they suddenly left.If one or two went it wouldn't; but if a majority (or even a large minority) seceded it might, or at least weaken it sufficiently so as to make its survival untenable.
bluebell Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I believe it does. Let's suppose 90% of the people of the US came to the conclusion that their interests would be best served by leaving the Union, and dismantling the constitution and the federation; they have the powder to bring it about, and by non-violent or revolutionary means. They will simply elect like-minded candidates to the Senate and Congress, the Presidency of the United States, and ultimately the Supreme Court, who will make the necessary amendments to the Constitution (if need be) to be able to bring about the required change.If 90% of people wanted something changed and they had the power to elect leaders who would do exactly what they wanted, they wouldn't need to leave the union. In fact, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did so-taking themselves out of their powerbase and destroying (for themselves) the very way they are getting what they want.But, i don't believe there is an evidence to suggest that people can control the leaders they elect to the degree you have described. Especially if such leaders knew that there was absolutely nothing in it for them in doing what the people wanted (since the people were trying to leave, any leader fulfilling their wishes would also, in the same breath, be gutting their own support system. What president or congress is going to work to get elected knowing that when he/they does/do, 100% of the people who put them in power are leaving? Talk about political suicide.)
Stargazer Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Yes.However, I think President Packer was also implying that a second civil war wouldn't be exactly ideal for the church at this moment in time.OK, I would say that he is correct, if this is what he was implying.My interest in firearms ownership, however, stems not from a need to rebel, but from a need to defend, in the event of anarchy or civil unrest. I will admit the relative unlikelhood of this, but even rare things sometimes happen, and when they happen to you then you are at 100% and statistics are moot.
Stargazer Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I guess i'll have to see the quote. (not that it matters if Lincoln disagrees with me or not. He's not the measuring stick that we use to determine whether or not something is either true, or legal).I provided the quote earlier in the thread. It was from his 1st inaugral address. Here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59384-12th-aoff-and-state-succession-petitions/page__st__160#entry1209196905We don't have to rely solely upon Lincoln in this case. Later, the Supreme Court essentially codified Lincoln's argument in Texas v. White.Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote the majority opinion, which in fact echoes Lincoln. He wrote:When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.I guess if you were saying that if a state did in fact leave the Union by consent of the United States, this wouldn't make the United States any less the United States. You may have a point, although it is quite ephemeral, since it isn't going to ever happen.
bluebell Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I guess if you were saying that if a state did in fact leave the Union by consent of the United States, this wouldn't make the United States any less the United States. You may have a point, although it is quite ephemeral, since it isn't going to ever happen.That is exactly what I have been saying. Ephemeral or not, it's what the discussion has been about.
Stargazer Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 That is exactly what I have been saying. Ephemeral or not, it's what the discussion has been about.Well, some parts of the discussion have been about this. It's been rather free-ranging.
TAO Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) OK, I would say that he is correct, if this is what he was implying.I don't know for sure. I just remember that it was in that context it was brought up a while back ago. Not necessarily civil war, but... something along the lines of the chaos caused by it or something like it.Alas, I should relaly let the man speak for himself about it. Edited November 26, 2012 by TAO
blackstrap Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Well, some parts of the discussion have been about this. It's been rather free-ranging.Who you calling a chicken? This from someone who thinks 1+2+1= 3 ( see post #160 )
mathonihah Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 If 90% of people wanted something changed and they had the power to elect leaders who would do exactly what they wanted, they wouldn't need to leave the union. In fact, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did so-taking themselves out of their powerbase and destroying (for themselves) the very way they are getting what they want.But, i don't believe there is an evidence to suggest that people can control the leaders they elect to the degree you have described. Especially if such leaders knew that there was absolutely nothing in it for them in doing what the people wanted (since the people were trying to leave, any leader fulfilling their wishes would also, in the same breath, be gutting their own support system. What president or congress is going to work to get elected knowing that when he/they does/do, 100% of the people who put them in power are leaving? Talk about political suicide.)You are making a lot of assumptions. People do shoot themselves in the foot sometimes; and they don't have to "force" their leaders to do anything. They will choose leaders who are already in agreement with what they want.
thesometimesaint Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Not quite, the articles of confederation failed to regulate interstate commerce, including currency.The AoC also provided no means for the Federal government to enforce its rules. Thus making for nullification and stagnation by the individual states. The Supremacy Clause solved that problem. George Washington as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army constantly railed against lack of support by the Continental Congress. The individual states could and did refuse to raise the requested money.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy
bluebell Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 You are making a lot of assumptions. People do shoot themselves in the foot sometimes; and they don't have to "force" their leaders to do anything. They will choose leaders who are already in agreement with what they want.No more assumptions than what you are making, right? If you are going to use asssumptions and 'it could happen' as your whole argument, then it's only fair that assumptions and 'it couldn't happen' be allowed as an equally valid counter-argument.The whole line of thinking is a hypothetical afterall.
bluebell Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Well, some parts of the discussion have been about this. It's been rather free-ranging.I'm speaking about my part of the discussion that you took issue with and claimed Lincoln and the Supreme court disagreed with. It has consistently been my point that there is a difference between armed rebellion and asking the government to allow a state to secceed and that the second is neither treasonous nor would it guarantee the destruction of the Union.You claimed that Lincoln disagreed with my argument, but then basically agreed with me after putting up some things that never had anything to do with what i was saying. I'm guessing that you never really understood what i was saying, or you wouldn't have posted what you did, since, as i said, it's been the whole point of the discussion (between you and me).Sorry if i was confusing.
Duncan Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Who you calling a chicken? This from someone who thinks 1+2+1= 3 ( see post #160 ) you should have been a writer for Abbott and Costello!
mathonihah Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 No more assumptions than what you are making, right? If you are going to use asssumptions and 'it could happen' as your whole argument, then it's only fair that assumptions and 'it couldn't happen' be allowed as an equally valid counter-argument.The whole line of thinking is a hypothetical afterall.It is also possible to make incorrect assumptions. I think you are making some incorrect assumptions. My original argument had been that if a large enough majority of the people of the United States wanted to secede from the Union, and destroy the Constitution, they could do so using the democratic process at their disposal, without recourse to armed insurrection or revolution. Your response was that that was impossible, or that they wouldn't want to. I think that both of those are incorrect assumptions.
thesometimesaint Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 There is no provision for such in our Constitution. Heck even our Pledge of Allegiance has the word indivisible. The Constitution isn't a death wish for government.. It is a wish for a more perfect union. There is simply no peaceful, legal way to secede.
Saints Alive Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 There is simply no peaceful, legal way to secede.Well the peacefulness of secession is dependent upon the state and the federal government. It certainly is possible for a state to peacefully secede if both parties are amicable to it. Much like the Philippines secession, albeit that the Philippines were a territory and not a state.
Anijen Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 It is my belief that we are to be obedient to the laws of the land, having said that I would not judge those who have signed a peacful letter intent on secession as apostate or even treasonous. I have covenanted to be obedient to all the commandments that the Lord gives me, I have not done so with all the laws the Government gives me. Now don't get me wrong, but there are some laws that have been given in history that frankly need some rebellion. For example does the 12th Article of Faith make me a bad member if I do not follow Lilburn Boggs? Should I follow the orders of Issac Haight, John Higbee, or John D. Lee? David O McKay said "We sustain law by keeping it [the Law] in good repute."No, I am not a proponent for secession (yet), but those who wish to do so IMO are not breaking the 12AoF. By doing so in the manner that they are doing it, that being in complete compliance of the law are in fact supporting the 12AofF. 1
Saints Alive Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 I agree, I don't think those who have signed the petitions have done anything wrong.
thesometimesaint Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 The Philippine War of Independence wasn't peaceful.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_WarI think a better example would be Porto Rico. When put to a popular vote Porto Rico has never wanted to become a State. What many want is independence from the US. It is doubtful the US would ever permit it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_movement_in_Puerto_Rico
thesometimesaint Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 I don't see how in good faith anyone can petition the government to dissolve itself. What happens when the government says No?
Saints Alive Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 The Philippine War of Independence wasn't peaceful.http://en.wikipedia....ne–American_WarYes and they lost, but later (years later, after WWII) they were granted independence without a shot fired.
Saints Alive Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 I don't see how in good faith anyone can petition the government to dissolve itself. What happens when the government says No?In this case it is a member of one state asking that their state be allowed to peacefully secede, no one is asking the government dissolve itself, If all the states request secession them the government would be dissolved by default, but that is not the fault of the individual state requesting independence. If the government "says no" then they can either let it go at that (the most likely outcome since I don't believe anyone is serious about secession) or they can seek independence via armed conflict (very unlikely in this case)
Recommended Posts