Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Antonin Scalia: No right to secede
The Washington Post ^ | 17 Feb 2010 | Robert Barnes

Posted on 02/17/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by Palter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last
To: Palter

Kind of like...WHO ASKED YA?

If we come to a point where a state (or many) decide to secede, we could care less about your opinion.


101 posted on 02/17/2010 12:10:43 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

No wonder our court is a joke. Wars do not answer constitutional questions. They only answer “Might is Right”. The Civil War did not answer if a State could suceed, and, in fact, answered that it could.


102 posted on 02/17/2010 12:10:47 PM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Actually it was your comment that was irrelevant since the topic of the thread was the right to secede, not the right to rebel. But I doubt you read that far to begin with.

My comment was totally relevant.

You, being the constitutional giant that you are, were attempting to correct Scalia with only half of the answer. (The one that you subscribe to and have iterated ad infinitum.)

I simply pointed out that you had conveniently left out a rather important part of the majority opinion.

Of course, being the consummate troll, you countered with that imbecilic 'how'd that work out for ya' post.

Which is the reason why you don't begin to meet the requirements expected of a mod,

What requirements?

Being an unemployed bore with a PC, like you?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

103 posted on 02/17/2010 12:11:20 PM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: manc

Well, we’ve been talking about West Virginia history here. It’s kind of hard for me to say, “Yea...Why is your tax money going there!” When I drove home for ten years on I-68, the most beautiful road in America that connects absolutely nothing.

I guess it was important to open up that key Morgantown-Cumberland route for the Conestoga Wagons.


104 posted on 02/17/2010 12:11:22 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Palter

105 posted on 02/17/2010 12:13:23 PM PST by mojitojoe (“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.” - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
ITA. Let's say a state does decide to secede. There are steps that will happen before any force is involved. And I don't think Americans will accept the federal government moving troops on its own citizens. Of course, that could also cause other states to join in.

Its a very precarious thing.

But if a state did decide, there really isn't much the federal government could do to stop it.

106 posted on 02/17/2010 12:13:26 PM PST by rintense (Only dead fish go with the flow, which explains why Congress stinks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

The *the incredible sh*tstorm* is always more fun to watch.


107 posted on 02/17/2010 12:14:23 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“The citizens of that state paid federal taxes during the years in which the feds were building stuff in their state. “

Not to mention, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to have made those construction projects in the first place.


108 posted on 02/17/2010 12:16:48 PM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

:) I agree it would be, especially with someone who can’t be fired.


109 posted on 02/17/2010 12:18:05 PM PST by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Yeah that revolution part really worked for you, didn’t it?

We left England under revolution, so I’d say your snide remarks are nothing but bullshit from a bullshit artist. The South failed in their attempt but your arrogance about it is just silly as you cannot possibly lay claim that no further attempt will succeed. Pussies like you aren’t going to stop any rebellion.


110 posted on 02/17/2010 12:19:52 PM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

The issue isn’t settled primarily because the federal government was formed by the free actions of the states and gets its authority from the people and the states, not the other way around.


111 posted on 02/17/2010 12:21:21 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Truth - Reality through the eyes of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
We left England under revolution, so I’d say your snide remarks are nothing but bullshit from a bullshit artist.

It was a snide remark directed at a rabid Lost Cause revisionist fanatic. I can see why you would take offense as well.

The South failed in their attempt but your arrogance about it is just silly as you cannot possibly lay claim that no further attempt will succeed. Pussies like you aren’t going to stop any rebellion.

Well if the next rebellion is depending on the likes of you for its success then I'm certainly not going to be losing any sleep over it.

112 posted on 02/17/2010 12:23:01 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Palter; All
I don't care what some black robed idiot says. The constitution tells us we have the right to change governments if the one we are living under becomes too onerous to tolerate. Read it for yourself. That part of the constitution is what gives us the right to secede, regardless if there is no article that says specifically we can "secede".

The preamble says in effect that humans have the right to choose their government, that means if we find we are being enslaved we can throw off the shackles, if the throwing off is peaceful, that would be secession, if it is violent, that is revolution.

The war between the states is an example of a non-peaceful secession, even though the confederate states peacefully seceded the Union wouldn't allow it, therefore there was a bloddy conflict.

The Union cannot force the states to stay in the Union of the people don't want to unless they use force. It may work out slightly differently this time around.

BTW, even without a constitution, people have the God given right to choose their government, that includes Americans.

113 posted on 02/17/2010 12:24:00 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Correct to post 113. bloddy conflict = bloody conflict.


114 posted on 02/17/2010 12:25:11 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
I'd love to see Barry hit with the decision of what to do in the event of possible secession. (without TOTUS, of course)
115 posted on 02/17/2010 12:25:15 PM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: manc; lentulusgracchus; WKUHilltopper; Who is John Galt?; Bigun; Christian_Capitalist; wolfcreek; ..

Ping


116 posted on 02/17/2010 12:26:51 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Exactly my take on the matter.


117 posted on 02/17/2010 12:26:58 PM PST by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I mentioned this on another thread a while ago. For reasons I can’t fully explain, I was watching old Firing Line clips on Youtube.

Anyway, there is a fascinating interview there between WFB and Huey P. Newton. Newton is high as a kite, but asks Buckley at what point, “What side would you have been on in 1776?”

Buckley states that he suspects he would have been on Washington’s side but is not sure since - generally speaking - revolutions always lead to violence, chaos, and a new government worse than the former government - regardless of which side wins.

It made me realize that the so-called conservatives who call for revolution are not really conservatives. They are, well, revolutionaries.

And that is ultimately what the civil war was - a revolution that failed. And - as Buckley would have predicted - it left chaos, death, and a worse government in its wake.


118 posted on 02/17/2010 12:27:52 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
My comment was totally relevant.

As relevant as most of your crap, which is virtually nil. The thread is on secession. Justice Scalia says it is not Constitutional and that the Supreme Court ruled on it. I'm pointing out that the same decision identified one way to legally secede. The rebellion part is not relevant to that discussion. Your relevance to any discussion is usually problematic at best.

You, being the constitutional giant that you are, were attempting to correct Scalia with only half of the answer. (The one that you subscribe to and have iterated ad infinitum.)

There is only one Constitutional answer. Unless you can point to the clause in the Constitution allowing rebellion.

Of course, being the consummate troll, you countered with that imbecilic 'how'd that work out for ya' post.

Which was more than your imbecilic remark deserved.

Being an unemployed bore with a PC, like you?

Truth for one. Intelligence for another. Two qualities lacking in that remark, and all your other ones as well.

119 posted on 02/17/2010 12:29:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Just as the colonies didn't have the "right" to leave Britain, maybe there is no "right" to secede.

But it doesn't matter.

If you decide to leave and have the power to back it up, the law doesn't mean a whole lot.

120 posted on 02/17/2010 12:29:17 PM PST by Repealthe17thAmendment (Is this field required?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln's legal view was that there existed a state of insurrection, not war. That is an internal state of protest that does not reach International law level. (A rebellion does reach International Level, ergo other countries can take sides.) Lincoln's view was that the states had never left the union and were incapable of doing so. This angered the representatives of the extreme northern states who felt the southern states had dissolved and needed to be completely reconstituted and re-admitted into the union. In such a way, they could make various re admittance conditions. Lincoln was assassinated. Andrew Johnson continued Lincoln's views and was impeached because of it.
121 posted on 02/17/2010 12:34:49 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Exactly. Liberals lose all the time, hell they can’t win because Socialism Always Fails, but they never quit trying. Why should we?


122 posted on 02/17/2010 12:35:30 PM PST by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Just more ‘case law’ Bullsh!T!

Let's not ‘upset’ the NEO-PINKO/Yankee - Bovine Semen Swallower's.

P.S

Libtard

123 posted on 02/17/2010 12:39:42 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Yeah, I saw this thread. I just didn't think that I had much to say about it other than, "I disagree with Scalia."

Sometimes the SCOTUS gets it wrong. See Roe v. Wade as just one example.

124 posted on 02/17/2010 12:40:08 PM PST by Christian_Capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Wanna watch us, Judge?


125 posted on 02/17/2010 12:41:08 PM PST by wastedyears (The curtain has fallen, behold the messiah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
But isn’t the US Constitution a contract between the Federal Government and the States?
No it's between the government and the people.

Isn’t the 10th amendment of the “Contract” the opt out provisions given to the states if the Federal Government violates their end of the contract?
No. The 10th Amendment makes clear that the Federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers and all powers not enumerated belong to the state (by enumeration by state constitution) or to the people (if not enumerated).

The States would have never ratified the Constitution without the opt out provision the 10th Amendment legally gives the states.
The 10th Amendment was never considered and opt out provision by the founders and was never discussed in that way during the constitutional debates.

The Civil war made clear that using the argument of states "rights" to perpetuate the institution of slavery wasn't going to work. While states certainly do have powers that in some cases supersede that of the federal powers it was recognized since the founding of the country that the constitution was the supreme law of the land. Slavery was an anachronism even at the time of the founding and many founders wanted to make it illegal. Allowing this immoral behavior along with the adoption of the English common law were two mistakes the founders made.
126 posted on 02/17/2010 12:43:16 PM PST by Durus (The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
The issue isn’t settled primarily because the federal government was formed by the free actions of the states and gets its authority from the people and the states, not the other way around.

Just so. And make no mistake, We the People have allowed this to happen and We the People will have to fix it. WE have also got to drag our states, some kicking and screaming probably, into the fray. From the beginning they should have been our first line of defense against a feral government, and any many cases in the early going, some tried. The jackbooted actions and outright extortion by the federales brought most to heel. We've lost many battles but the war against tyrants never ends until such time as we are unwilling to defend our freedoms.

127 posted on 02/17/2010 12:46:11 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Why don’t you give it a rest you self righteous asshole!


128 posted on 02/17/2010 12:47:37 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange; Slings and Arrows; Markos33; GSP.FAN
Scalia - ""I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."

FateAmenableToChange - " John Locke’s right of revolution that was used as a justification for the first American revolution is highly contingent — you have a right to revolution under the natural law if you win. If you don’t win, then you didn’t have a right to revolution.

Chairman Mao - "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

Let me be crystal clear - I hate Commies! But I like the succinct way The Chairman put it.


129 posted on 02/17/2010 12:49:38 PM PST by shibumi (Health and well being for S. and L. - in Jesus name we pray!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH
The union is only held together by the constitution which is a piece of paper only valid as long as we the people believe it to be.

The union is held together by an armed military, now just as it was in the 1860's. The constitution is that scrap of paper about half of us hope the gubmint abides by ... actually, I should say wish the gubmint would abide by.

Two hundred and forty years ago the farmers and merchants who threw off King George's yoke were armed nearly as well as King George's military.

Spend a little time on some sites like 'military.com' for a sobering view of the toys we-the-taxpayers have provided for the "commander in chief."

When push comes to shove, we will have a better time of it by swamping gubmint with massive civil disobedience than with armed opposition. Fewer of us will die in the process. Not none, but fewer.

130 posted on 02/17/2010 12:50:36 PM PST by RobinOfKingston (Democrats, the party of evil. Republicans, the party of stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
This angered the representatives of the extreme northern states who felt the southern states had dissolved and needed to be completely reconstituted and re-admitted into the union.

That is incorrect. If you look at the legislation which 'readmitted' Texas you will see that what was being readmitted was their delegation to Congress and not the state to the Union. Link

Texas is not referred to as a former state or a territory, she is clearly identified as the State of Texas. Which is appropriate since she was never out of the Union to begin with.

131 posted on 02/17/2010 12:50:39 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Why don’t you give it a rest you self righteous asshole!

Why don't you direct your ire towards those who began the name calling in the first place?

132 posted on 02/17/2010 12:51:32 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Still in all I am just dumbfounded by his curious observation that the Civil War settled the matter of secession.

It did provide the court with the one case on the matter, Texas v. White. And as much at the Lost Causers will cry that it's a bad decision because of X, Y, and Z, it's still a US Supreme Court decision.

It's as if after a single battle in a larger war against tyranny the loser is eternally obligated somehow to be under the heel of the winner. That the loser of a single battle and some other lesser skimishes cannot regroup, rearm and reorganize for a counter-attack just takes my breath away.

They can. They just can't go into court when they're arrested and explain that they thought it was legal.

There's a natural right of rebellion. Overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States and you can make up your own rules. But you can't expect that the government is obliged just roll over and give anyone anything they ask for.

133 posted on 02/17/2010 12:55:34 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Just more ‘case law’ Bullsh!T!

Yeah, who needs that thar law bullshit anyhow? Certainly not the stalwart members of the Lost Cause Brigade.

Let's not ‘upset’ the NEO-PINKO/Yankee - Bovine Semen Swallower's.

You know the way that you and cowboyway accuse everyone of being homosexual at the drop of a hat makes me wonder if there isn't something Freudian in that.

Libtard

Commie.

134 posted on 02/17/2010 12:59:09 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Liberals lose all the time, hell they can’t win because Socialism Always Fails, but they never quit trying. Why should we?

I think it's in the genes or something. Libtards are driven by demons conservatives can barely understand and certainly have difficulty dealing with. They are control freaks, for lack of a better term; conservatives just want to be left alone. You can see the essence of the problem. Libtards are wild-eyed fanatics, not unlike islamofascists, incessantly fighting for control to sate the demons. Conservatives on the other hand will not violently react to their lunacy until there's no other way to respond. The libtards will say "OMG, we never saw it coming. We were just trying to help"! God spare us from these inveterate busybodies.

135 posted on 02/17/2010 1:01:50 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Why don’t you give it a rest you self righteous asshole!

Precisely because he's a self righteous asshole.

136 posted on 02/17/2010 1:02:44 PM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Palter

The logic of this is really ridiculous. If one side forces the other to stay when they don’t want to, then those that must stay are nothing more than SLAVES.


137 posted on 02/17/2010 1:03:40 PM PST by nanetteclaret (Unreconstructed Catholic Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

You’ll pardon my, uh, less than elegant language??? It boiled down to either “twit” or “asshole”; asshole won out. ;^)


138 posted on 02/17/2010 1:13:28 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You like to mock the South as though you were personally there in the Civil War fighting against them, making that your basis to say the North would do it again. Well, not with pink fingered wussies like you who have never made a fist in their life but like to talk tough; you’d cry like a baby and whimper away. The North and the South are no longer the places they were in 1860, yet, you continue to talk as though they are, bashing the South as just a bunch of drunken racist rednecks. Grow up, stupid, the world isn’t as your liberal glasses view it.


139 posted on 02/17/2010 1:16:41 PM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

I guess the “Civil War” nullifies the Declaration of Independence, right, Justuce Scalia?


140 posted on 02/17/2010 1:17:01 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Why don't you direct your ire towards those who began the name calling in the first place?

Because they're right and you're wrong??? It seems to me you're prime directive is to constantly throw cold water on efforts to send the federales a clear message that conservatives are just about fed up with their trampling of our God given rights. If you're not careful, you'll miss the boat.

141 posted on 02/17/2010 1:17:57 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

LOL! Now THAT is funny.


142 posted on 02/17/2010 1:19:14 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009

“And that is ultimately what the civil war was - a revolution that failed. And - as Buckley would have predicted - it left chaos, death, and a worse government in its wake.”

The is the most important concern of a revolution: If you lose, and you are the ones trying to create a government based on liberty and freedom, then you have left those that do not desire liberty and freedom in a stronger position.

My personal belief is that the entire political situation was about to change. Unfortunately, the war broke out first. The South had every right to demand their rights, and I am not talking about slavery. History is always easy to second guess but we only have today to judge ourselves. We can only hope we make the right decisions and history agrees.


143 posted on 02/17/2010 1:20:32 PM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas

144 posted on 02/17/2010 1:20:47 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

But Locke’s right of revolution comes from God and the natural law, not the bbl of a gun. While the visible effect is the same, Mao was purely worldly; Locke and the American revolutionaries were seriously concerned with legitimating and justifying the revolution in light of scriptural commands to obey the authorities because they are annointed by God.


145 posted on 02/17/2010 1:21:45 PM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The thread is on secession.

You're such a hypocrite. You try to hijack every thread posted about the WBTS by launching into totally irrelevant topics and personal attacks.

Unless you can point to the clause in the Constitution allowing rebellion.

If you actually read the article, which I doubt, you'll know that it all starts with the question, "Is there a right to secede from the Union, or did the Civil War settle that?"

Pay attention to the word 'right'. I know that you atheist have a hard time with this next part, but our 'rights' are endowed by our Creator, a loving God.

You may also know that the Constitution is a document limiting government and that the 10th Amendment states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These are God given rights and they include the right to choose ones own destiny and neither you nor any of the rest of the damnyankee communist coven can take that away.

146 posted on 02/17/2010 1:22:47 PM PST by cowboyway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
That makes no sense. The winner isn’t necessary right....they just happened to win.

It makes sense from the perspective that there is a righteous revolution of the masses in which a significant portion of the polity opts into the revolution. Victory is confirmatory of the fact that the revolutionaries were in the right.

147 posted on 02/17/2010 1:24:32 PM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bidimus1
The Declaration of Independence is not true because it is written. It was written because it is true.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,...

148 posted on 02/17/2010 1:25:18 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
It did provide the court with the one case on the matter, Texas v. White. And as much at the Lost Causers will cry that it's a bad decision because of X, Y, and Z, it's still a US Supreme Court decision.

Ah yes, precedent, the libtards holy grail. FWIW, and from what little I've read of this decision, "coerced" might not be a bad description.

They can. They just can't go into court when they're arrested and explain that they thought it was legal.

Why? Is it extra-constitutional and out of the purview of the courts?

There's a natural right of rebellion. Overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States and you can make up your own rules. But you can't expect that the government is obliged just roll over and give anyone anything they ask for.

Our present Constitution is adequate for self governance. It's not being followed by the federales who wish to convert its use to toilet paper. We don't need to overthrow anything, we need to get the feral government train back on the tracks -- whether they like it or not.

149 posted on 02/17/2010 1:26:22 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

That’s funny.


150 posted on 02/17/2010 1:35:42 PM PST by central_va ( http://www.15thvirginia.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson