Posted on 12/18/2022 11:28:09 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
“I know history, dad.”
You know squat.
“While they formed a power structure, it had no real authority. They may have n called it an Army, but again they had no real authority over their Army.”
It’s called delegation, son. The Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army; it appointed (delegated) George Washington to command the army and whip it into shape. The Congress had the authority to disband the army; but as any smart political leaders know, they (those political leaders) should not micromanage an army in the field, especially back in those days when communication systems were...iffy.
“The army could have disbanded at any moment they decided they had enough, and not a single man who decided to leave it would have faced any consequence whatsoever.”
You know nothing. The troops signed on for a specific period of time. In fact, prior to crossing the Delaware to attack the Hessian forces at Trenton on Christmas, 1776, many of Washington’s forces were nearing the end of their commitment. He made an impassioned plea to those forces, that if they stayed, it could make the difference between certain defeat and collapse of the rebellion on the one hand, and the chance to show Cornwallis and Great Britain that the commitment of the colonials was for the long haul on the other. Basically, he posed it as an all or nothing proposition.
“Zelenskyy swept to victory in Ukraine’s spring 2019 presidential election because he promised renewed reform and a real fight against corruption. None of what he promised has occurred, because waging war against his Russian speaking citizens was far more important.”
My God, you are naiive. Ukraine’s “Russian-speaking citizens” were in open rebellion against their national government! First they announced they were seceding (this was prior to Zelensky becoming president); then, when they were told that was illegal, they demanded autonomy.
Okay; but the Ukrainian constitution addressed such a situation, saying that all referenda on autonomy must be put to ALL the voters of Ukraine, not just those in the areas seeking autonomy. Russia, the separatists’ sponsor, screeched FOUL!
“Ukraine’s parliament approved a law on 4/21/2019 that granted special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it mandatory for public sector workers. A move Russia described as divisive and said discriminated against Russian-speakers. That was almost a month before Zelenskyy assumed office 5/20/2019.’
So, you think it is terrible that a country insists that its public employees speak the language of the country? Are you equally offended by, say, Russia insisting that it be mandatory for Russian public employees to be able to speak...(sit down) RUSSIAN? Or for German public employees to speak German? Or Iranian public employees to speak Farsi? Or American public employees to speak English? Do you want to go into your local DMV to get a driver’s license and you can’t interact with the clerk at the counter because he or she has no idea WTF you are saying?
“So, the comedian president turned actual president decided to pursue going after the Russian speaking residents, rather than bring his nation together. Which in turn caused the Donbas region to seek autonomy.”
Listen to you!
Zelensky would have to go after himself, because his native language is...(sit down again) RUSSIAN! When he was born Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and he spoke Russian from the beginning. And the Donbas sought autonomy FIVE YEARS before Zelensky ever took office!
“Had Zelenskyy enacted the Minsky agreements that had been signed in 2014 & 2015 there would be no war today, and there was zero threat of Russia invading.”
Minsky? As in, “The Night They Raided Minsky’s?”
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea! Again, Zelensky didn’t even assume office until 2019!
Give it up, kid; you have no idea what you are talking about.
Did someone hand you a sheet of talking points?
I also know about delegation, dad. I also understand about authority , dad. They assumed authority, and delegation, but not be consensus.
But really, you think you know more than you actually do.
For if you did, you wouldn't allow the full scale invasion of our southern border and support the usurpation of our resources for the sake of Ukraine. You would understand that is we fall, the world falls, and right now we are under the control of people who would rather have tyrannical powers, than for the U.S. to remain a free nation.
“You just do not get it. They had no authority whatsoever.”
By “they” I assume you mean the Continental Congress. Colonial legislatures sent delegates to the Continental Congress (I think only Georgia was not represented in the First Continental Congress). Delegates represent their superiors (in this case, the colonies); delegates are their agents. Thus, the Congress very much had authority to act on behalf of the colonies.
The Continental Congress spoke and acted collectively for the people of the thirteen colonies.
“It was still a British Colony, and there were many people in the colony that did not agree with their activities.”
Yes, they were still British colonies, up until the time they declared independence in July, 1776 (remember, Washington’s attack on Trenton was in December, 1776, almost six months later). And, there are always some people who disagree with the actions of their state.
The Second Continental Congress met in May, 1775 in response to the outbreak of hostilities in Massachusetts the previous month. All thirteen colonies sent delegates to this Congress.
The Congress functioned as a de facto national government from the beginning. It established the Continental Army, directed strategy, and appointed diplomats. It eventually agreed to the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
“I also know about delegation, dad. I also understand about authority, dad. They assumed authority, and delegation, but not be consensus.”
You are clueless, son. The delegates were sent by their colonial legislatures, to act on behalf of their respective colonies. Thus, they HAD the authority. See my comment above.
“But really, you think you know more than you actually do.
For if you did, you wouldn’t allow the full scale invasion of our southern border and support the usurpation of our resources for the sake of Ukraine.”
Non sequitur! And you are assuming facts not in evidence!
But I’ll respond, anyway. How am I “allowing” the “full scale invasion” of our southern border? I have neither the power nor the authority to allow or disallow illegal immigration across our borders. Well, I guess I could go down to the border and start shooting the illegals as they crossed the border. But that would be futile, and would bankrupt our family and land me in jail for the rest of my life. As for Ukraine, I support providing Ukraine aid and weapons so it can defend itself against the existential threat from Russia. I do not support putting US boots on the ground in Ukraine or US helmets in the air over Ukraine, unless there is a direct threat against the US or its vital interests, and there is no other alternative. I have a family member in the US Army who is in Germany right now, and if the flag goes up, he will immediately be in the thick of it.
“You would understand that is we fall, the world falls...”
Well, the free world, anyway.
Just like we now have no legal authority to conspire to start a revolution. We can either get a majority to defend the Constitution as the law of the land, or we have to start a revolution, of which there is no legal authority to exercise that option in the cibstitution. We would either be arrested, or we would face the military. Doesn't mean we can't still execute a revolution, and like our forefathers experienced, the British legally invaded their colonies to repel the illegal revolution.
I'm not in anyway complaining that our forefathers did what they did, but they had no real authority to act in the manner of which they acted. By that I mean in a court of law the colonist would have lost the legal case.
The Civil War is an excellent example. The authorities in the southern states decided that they would secede from the United States. President James Buchanan refused to accept their secession. When South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon their facilities in Charleston Harbor, they refused.
When they refused to do so. the Charleston authorities seized all federal property in Charleston.
Now both were working within their rights, but President James Buchanan refused to honor their constitutional right to secede from the Union, while the southern states refused to take it to the courts. They instead ended up going to war.
But who really had the ultimate authority, the crown or the colonists? Who had the ultimate authority in the Civil War, The Union, or the southern states. In neither case does it matter, because in both cases each believed they had the ultimate authority. As a result they ended up going to war.
However, we now believe that in the Civil War, the southern states did have the constitutional authority to secede. What still remains unanswered though, is what happens with federal property? Does the state have to pay the federal government to recoup their property, or does the federal government have to forfeit the government property back to the state which owned it first?
It really all boils down to which point of view you chose to accept. I think in the revolutionary war, the Crown was the ultimate legal authority, but I certainly think the colonists made the brave decision. Thank goodness they were victorious, is all I have to say.
When one makes factually incorrect statements when attacking a comment and personal then One has to assume the person is suffering from delusion or is being paid to make such comments.
Russian history is replete with aggression, desire to dominate its neighbors, and bullying tactics. However, the actions of NATO led by the US in breaking its promises to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union cannot be ignored. NATO and the Biden Administration is just as responsible for the War that is destroying tens of millions of lives as is Russia.
No, you’ve it exactly backwards. It’s Russia that broke its promises. Putin always puts the onus and demands on Russia’s victims. How about instead Russia just doesn’t invade and murder it’s smaller neighbors? Why is that so difficult for Russia?
“What you say is true, but they still did not have the legal authority to make the decision to leave the British Empire under the control of King George III. Just like we now have no legal authority to conspire to start a revolution.”
That’s why they are called revolutions.
“I’m not in anyway complaining that our forefathers did what they did, but they had no real authority to act in the manner of which they acted. By that I mean in a court of law the colonist would have lost the legal case.”
It depends on in whose court the matter was brought: In a Crown court, the colonists would lose; in a Colonial court, they’d probably win. In any event, the prevailing party in the revolution gets to determine its legality.
Were your parents related or something or does being a being a dumb f**k just come natural to you?.
Go play in the traffic.
I'll agree, but to make it more accurate, I would state the following:
In any event, the winder of the revolution will determine their future and establish rightful authority.
My guess is that it would be in both courts, and the Crown's court would overrule the colonist's court, because the citizens of the colonies are subject to the Crown's authority. Just like federal courts overrule the state & local courts.
Thus going to the courts for resolution before the existence of the country, would solve nothing and the end result would remain the same, revolution. However, for the secession by the southern states might have produced a different outcome, but again no guarantees.
Speaking of court case, have you been following the Brunson vs. Adams case being reviewed by the Supreme Court? Very interesting, and this video is new, as well as, worth the watch Runtime is 1 hour 27 minutes:
Loy Brunson & the Supreme Court Case of the Century (and that is no hype either)
You clearly have a mental problem, freak. Either get some long-needed help or dive off a fkn bridge for all I care.
“My guess is that it would be in both courts, and the Crown’s court would overrule the colonist’s court, because the citizens of the colonies are subject to the Crown’s authority. Just like federal courts overrule the state & local courts.”
You are forgetting that the colonies had declared independence; in other words, they had seceded and established a new country separate and distinct from England. So, only the winner of the war would have the final say on the legality or legitimacy of the separation.
“Thus going to the courts for resolution before the existence of the country, would solve nothing and the end result would remain the same, revolution.”
Well, it was revolution no matter which court would have the jurisdiction. The question is: Was the revolution legal. And the ultimate determination of that would be made by the side that prevailed in the revolution.
“However, for the secession by the southern states might have produced a different outcome, but again no guarantees.”
That goes without saying: There are no guarantees other than those actually completed. Anything else is just an empty or unfulfilled promise.
“Speaking of court case, have you been following the Brunson vs. Adams case being reviewed by the Supreme Court?”
Somewhat. But my personal opinion is that the Brunson brothers are going to lose, and SCOTUS is not going to make any ruling that will overturn the 2020 election, nor remove any congressional members from office. It is my opinion that the Brunson brothers filed a pipe dream; and, pipe dreams are just that: Fantasies.
True, bur declaring and achieving are two different accomplishments. The achieving aspect, when realized codifies the declaration aspect. 🙂
“True, bur declaring and achieving are two different accomplishments. The achieving aspect, when realized codifies the declaration aspect.”
A declaration isn’t so much an accomplishment as it is a claim or announcement; there is no achievement in it, unless it is self-satisfaction. Also, the achievement is the actualization or realization of the declaration, and codification only come about by its acceptance.
You’re correct, I should have said two different acts. 🙂
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.