Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $19,204
21%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 21% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by mek1959

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/13/2013 9:00:57 PM PST · 166 of 173
    mek1959 to donmeaker

    Wrong on all counts.

    First, Article VI is defined by the “pursuance thereof” phrase. ONLY the laws “in pursuance thereof” are the Supreme Law of the land. Might want to check your facts friend. Also, the Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter, again, you might want to check the 9th and 10th Amendment. Marshall claiming judicial review does not make it sacrosanct. Geeez!

    Second, We the People in the aggregate did NOT ratify the Constitution...might want to check that out as well. Maybe you should start with tiny Rhode Island and look at how they ratified the Constitution. You’ll see it wasn’t in the aggregate. Answer this, who created the federal government, the People of the States? Hmmm...why would I ask that now?

    Keep bowing at the alter of DC. As for me, I’ll be working with the States to force the “men of mischief” back into the “chains of the Constitution.” If that fails, then the unalienable right to free association is next...hint, that means secession. I’ll let you keep focus on DC. Good luck.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 10:22:12 AM PST · 42 of 173
    mek1959 to x

    There can be all kinds of views on this...maybe there would be killings, maybe not.

    What we know for sure is that unalienable rights will not defend themselves...that’s just a fact.

    The fundamental question is whether or not we have the fortitude, convictions and courage of the Founders. That’s the question. They had the same fears...as did the secessionists in 1860.

    Further, there need not be 100% support in a State to move to secession...just a very vocal minority back up a State Legislature.

    Then we see what happens and so will the rest of the world see it this time as well. There was no internet in 1860 and not broadcast media either. Every secession movement throughout history is different. This one will be as well.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 9:39:47 AM PST · 37 of 173
    mek1959 to Psalm 144

    There need not be a shot fired. We had a peaceful secession already...in 1787. No one was shot, hung, or arrested back then.

    If Obama is Jackson/Lincoln revisited, then we’ll see. But I’m not remotely convinced there would be shooting. Just saber rattling and very tense negotiations.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 9:29:11 AM PST · 35 of 173
    mek1959 to RitaOK

    Indeed RitaOK, this is the conversation of the early 21st century. But it will be a battle for sure. We’ve all been infected by a disease called nationalism and the antidote are history and facts.

    It simply cannot be demonstrated that the signers of the ratification documents that “acceded” to the Constitution thought they were “surrendering” their sovereignty. Read the history of North Carolina’s ratification attempts. They failed until the Bill of Rights was passed believing it would ensure the newly created federal government wouldn’t trample on their State. Sadly, they were wrong. The other Wayward Sister, tiny Rhode Island waited almost two full years after NH ratified the Constitution to do so as well. Even then, they had to be kind of coerced into it by a very close 32-30 vote. Two votes. Is there any credibility to their desire not to be part of the new Union or where they just a bunch of redneck hayseeds like the nationalists make current day secession supporters out to be. Did you know that Rhode Island did not even send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

    These and many other facts are the facts the nationalists do not want people to know. For when we do, we will bring down their little empire in Washington DC by breaking away from it.

    Now, to be fair, I can’t blame all nationalists, just about everyone of us in this generation have been infected with this disease. But once we take the antidote (facts and history), we must fight to restore that which was usurped. The intentional nationalists (both progressive and conservative) are the real enemies of liberty. And they will be who we will do battle with always remembering though that our cause is just and right. There’s is about power and control over people.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 9:06:29 AM PST · 30 of 173
    mek1959 to DesertRhino

    Here here again!

    This is refreshing to see...people defending an unalienable right. The nationalists, even the conservative one’s, don’t know what to do with this type of reasoning. They love their little “nuances” or “penumbras” of legal theory. But as I mentioned about, secession is NOT a legal question anyway. It’s a political question.

    Conservative nationalists bother me the most. First, because I used to be one until I got off the power politics bandwagon and actually learned history. Second, because the consequences of the “nationalism” they promote, just their kind of nationalism leads exactly to the oligarchy we have today. Either way, progressive or conservative nationalism leads to the same place...crushing unalienable rights.

    Let me off the nationalist train please; I want nothing to do with it. It’s very ugly, dirty, backroom deal making and immoral. No thanks.

    Though certainly not perfect, I’ll take my chances with a Union of sovereign States where diversity and liberty have a much better chance.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:50:29 AM PST · 26 of 173
    mek1959 to jospehm20

    Exactly Jospehm20. People who war against secession war against unalienable rights. A law cannot over rule an unalienable right. Unalienable rights can be delegated, but not surrendered. And as such, when delegated, the delegation can be rescinded. Secession rescinds a delegated power. That’s all it is...and no law created can nullify that.

    Not even Texas v. White nor the make believe “perpetual Union” baloney made up out of whole cloth.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:44:19 AM PST · 24 of 173
    mek1959 to OrangeHoof

    Spot on OrangeHoof!

    The days of the nationalists and “perpetual Unionists” are coming to the close. Their Constitutional “theories” are being laid bare for the ridicule they deserve.

    They bathe themselves in legal theory while ignoring facts. Nationalists are NOT to be trusted. They undermine the very unalienable rights the Founders fought and died for. And in doing so, the MOCK their sacrifice.

    The Founders, Framers nor Ratifiers did NOT create a “national” government...that is a fact. The federalists may have wanted one and crafted a way to get there. But the simple facts are, the Constitution would never have been ratified had the people of the States believed they were surrendering their sovereignty.

    Fear the nationalists, even the ones calling themselves “Conservative!” They are seeking ways to usurp more of your unalienable rights.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:16:52 AM PST · 14 of 173
    mek1959 to SeekAndFind

    I see the nationalists are out in full bloom!

    No State surrendered their sovereignty...please point out where they did? I can point to three ratification documents that make it clear they intended to resume governance to themselves should it become to necessary to their happiness. So either the signers of these documents were frauds and flat out stupid and didn’t read the invisible clause in Article 7 where they surrendered their sovereignty. Or, maybe, just maybe the nationalists have it ALL wrong. Hmmm. I wonder which is correct...historical fact or the perpetual Union philosophy.

  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 8:08:08 AM PST · 12 of 173
    mek1959 to xkaydet65
    It's hard to have a perpetual Union when in between June 21, 1788 and May 29, 1790 (almost 2 full years) the Union only consisted of between 9 and 13 States. That is just a fact. per·pet·u·al /pərˈpeCHo͞oəl/ Adjective Never ending or changing. Ummm...in June 1788, the Union went from 13 down to 9 and was still only 12 out of 13 for almost 2 full years. Now, one can wax eloquent about the "nature" of a Union persevering even when it wasn't a Union, but that's not a fact, just a philosophical opinion, that's all. The facts are, the Perpetual Union of 13 States was fractured for almost 2 years after the new Union met the Article 7 threshold. Which begs the question; just how "perpetual" was this non-perpetual Union. Rhode Island certainly didn't think it was part of the "perpetual" Union. Further, 3 States made it exquisitely clear in their ratification documents they they would re-assume power to themselves "whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." I see no question or clause in Article 7 that the States were "surrendering" their sovereignty to the newly created non-perpetual Union. You can search, but it just ain't there. The "perpetual" Union nonsense was just a figment of a couple of presidents imaginations. A truly silly idea to boot.
  • On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

    01/10/2013 7:33:46 AM PST · 3 of 173
    mek1959 to SeekAndFind

    Great article. Secession is not a “legal” question anyway, it’s a political question. Those who believe the word secession is a scary word do so at their own peril.

    Not me, I’m not afraid of it. In fact, this the most powerful and potent tool we have...the unalienable right to free association.

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 11:20:22 AM PDT · 10 of 11
    mek1959 to Owl558
    Geeez.

    Is there a magic number that qualifies as a “long train of abuses” that Jefferson and the Committee of Five were asserting. Was it 23, or 19, or how about 3 really bad abuses?

    Nor do I believe the "world" has adopted the Committee of Five's recommendations about how long the list should be. Perhaps to the Flanders, redistribution of their property against their will is enough; I'm in no position to do so and won't. In the end, I'm not Belgium so how would I know? They seem to believe they have enough and they're choosing to exercise their unalienable right to self governance and self determination. You're not wanting to deny them that are you?

    If the Flanders want to leave they have every right to unless you believe they need “permission” to leave from their Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers...do you?

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 11:19:51 AM PDT · 9 of 11
    mek1959 to Owl558
    Geeez.

    Is there a magic number that qualifies as a “long train of abuses” that Jefferson and the Committee of Five were asserting. Was it 23, or 19, or how about 3 really bad abuses?

    Nor do I believe the "world" has adopted the Committee of Five's recommendations about how long the list should be. Perhaps to the Flanders, redistribution of their property against their will is enough; I'm in no position to do so and won't. In the end, I'm not Belgium so how would I know? They seem to believe they have enough and they're choosing to exercise their unalienable right to self governance and self determination. You're not wanting to deny them that are you?

    If the Flanders want to leave they have every right to unless you believe they need “permission” to leave from their Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers...do you?

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 11:18:38 AM PDT · 8 of 11
    mek1959 to Owl558
    Geeez.

    Is there a magic number that qualifies as a “long train of abuses” that Jefferson and the Committee of Five were asserting. Was it 23, or 19, or how about 3 really bad abuses?

    Nor do I believe the "world" has adopted the Committee of Five's recommendations about how long the list should be. Perhaps to the Flanders, redistribution of their property against their will is enough; I'm in no position to do so and won't. In the end, I'm not Belgium so how would I know? They seem to believe they have enough and they're choosing to exercise their unalienable right to self governance and self determination. You're not wanting to deny them that are you?

    If the Flanders want to leave they have every right to unless you believe they need “permission” to leave from their Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers...do you?

  • Is Secession a Good Idea?

    10/18/2012 2:43:34 AM PDT · 2 of 11
    mek1959 to Kaslin

    Of course secession (or separation, or self-determination, whatever you want to call it) are good ideas. Goodness sakes, that’s what we did in 1776 and I don’t hear many carping that our “separation” (as Jefferson termed it) was a bad idea.

    Now, there are a bunch of liberty usurping nationalists who will argue otherwise, but their arguments are fallacious at best.

    So go Flanders!

  • Jul 28, 1868: 14th Amendment adopted

    07/28/2012 5:50:04 PM PDT · 8 of 13
    mek1959 to BO Stinkss

    A very BAD day in US History.

  • What will last longer, The Constitution or The Fed?

    07/28/2012 12:13:18 PM PDT · 7 of 12
    mek1959 to ExxonPatrolUs

    The Constitution has been gone and unauthoritative already for a VERY long time.

  • The 3 P’s – Program, propaganda, pacify; how the national government grows

    05/14/2012 2:59:48 PM PDT · 2 of 5
    mek1959 to 76revolution

    I don’t think most people have any clue how much they’ve been propagandized, programmed and pacified into compliance with the national government.

    Hint - Anybody But Obama is NOT the answer!

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 11:22:31 AM PDT · 293 of 316
    mek1959 to mek1959

    Wow, sorry for the repetitive posts everyone...that’ll teach me to edit...click post, stop, edit, correct typo’s, repost!

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 11:20:08 AM PDT · 292 of 316
    mek1959 to Pelham
    Hey Pelham, excellent rebuttals!

    It's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

    Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary power so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."how's that working out for you?"

  • What did the Declaration of Independence Establish

    05/08/2012 11:19:38 AM PDT · 291 of 316
    mek1959 to Pelham
    Hey Pelham, excellent rebuttals!

    As I'm sure you appreciate, it's fun watching the big-government conservatives embrace nonsense like the perpetual union and very odd theories of contacts all the while, the noose of the national government that emerged after Lincoln tightens around their necks.

    Keep holding on to these "fanciful" ideas pro-arbitrary so called conservatives. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying..."hows that working out for you?"