That’s not just true of states, though. Hypothetically, if a county or even a city or town were strong enough to defend itself, it could leave the Union. The fact that a state can secede if its strong enough isn’t itself proof of anything other than that, in this world, if you’re strong enough, you can do pretty much whatever you want.
I think the US is a nation. It didn’t necessarily start out that way, and it wasn’t even like that by the time of the Civil War, but I know that now I think of myself as an American. I don’t really think of myself as a Virginian (where I live now) or a New Yorker (where I grew up), and I think that most people think of themselves as Americans first.
Oh goody. Then all the prejudice I encountered growing up Jewish in Virginia (1975 to 1991) never really happened. I never went to synagogue to find everyone very nervous because a cross had been burned on a member’s lawn. Apparently I imagined all those times somebody called me jewboy.
I’ll also have to start a new thread so I can tell Otto, Homebrew, Gobear, Esprix, Una Person and the rest that the states they live in have overcome their prejudices and are prepared to grant gays and lesbians all the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.
That also means that article I read in '02 about Florida denying gays the right to adopt never happened. Hmm, so that HIV positive boy wasn’t taken from the custody of the man who’s taken care of him since he was six months old.
The USA was never a nation-state, but always a plurality. This is quite obvious from a brief objective analysis of the facts. Each state was declared, retained, and recognized as a free, sovereign and independent nation-state unto itself; and only ignorance of the facts will claim otherwise-- in acquiesence to the power-grab by charlatans during the 19th century.
Your claim, for example, is purely based on unexamined dogmas, and the inability to distinguish a nation-state, from a federal republic among a plurality of such. Furthermore, each nation-state is a true democracy unto itself, not a Totalitarian oligarchy of elected middlemen who hold final authority, and which this is no democracy at all since the people do not and cannot consent to such an arrangement.
Rather, the charlatans in power simply form the new Church, and claim to minister True Faith to the majority against their will.
However the law is still clear: each state is a separate nation-state unto itself, by law; and the People-- i.e. the registered voters-- of each state, are the owners and final rulers thereof.
When the Lincoln GOP conquered the sovereign nation-states in 1861-65, under false color of national authority, then all power naturally defaulted to the federal government once the Peoples of the states no longer had it.
It is therefore imperative among the Peoples of each state, to reclaim their national sovereignty as continues to exist by law, and restore true Democracy to the world. Otherwise, oligarchy will continue.
No…a more accurate description would be to call the USA a Federal Republic. A true nation-state would not allow separate states within, not to mention imbuing them with varying degrees of autonomy.
So your sole argument is an ad hominem… and thus you forfeit.
As is proper, since the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized each American state as a separate free, sovereign and independent [i.e. *nation-*]state unto itself-- as they were originally declared in 1776, and retained status in 1781.
And the Constitution never expressly changed this-- which is the only way that a nation-state’s sovereignty *can *be changed, since there is no higher authority to a nation-state, so construe it from indirect language of other law. Thus, the national sovereignty of a state can only be voluntarily ceded by direct action.
On the contrary, each state was simply asserting that its respective People– i.e. registered voters-- were now the final authority therein; and they thus ordained and established the Constitution to form a more perfect Union than the one created under the Articles of Confederation in 1781, 2 years before they were officially recognized as separate nation-states under international law.
Aside from this assertion, the People of each state simply delegated powers differently in the Constitution; for example, they placed the federal government higher in the chain-of-command, than state governments; and they created a federal court as well.
But they never united the states as a single nation-state, as certain misinformed and agenda-driven pundits have claimed.
Accordingly, such claims are wholly null and void; and each state remains a separate democratic nation-state unto itself, by international law, being wholly owned and supremely ruled by its respective citizen-voters who wield final authority by popular vote, as wielded in state convention when called thereby.
Which was neither civil nor a war, since no existing nation-state waged it- as a war requires-- , and it was not between the *citizens *of a single nation-state, as implied by the term “civil” in that context.
Rather, it was simply an imperial power-grab by ruthless politicos falsely claiming both… and thus its legity is wholly null and void over the nation-states in question.
Which is also impossible, because the union in question was voluntary among separate nation-states, and thus cannot exist in an involuntary context. It would be as if the EU responded in the same way to Brexit-- i.e. by claiming that “the EU was a single nation-state, and that secession was treason–” and then proceeding to effect such by force, under claim of “national authority,” calling it a “civil war to suppress rebellion.”
Legally, that would not wash, and no nation would recognize the EU as a single nation-state but simply a rogue regime.
As is the USA, ever since 1861, for the same reason.
“because each part has a job to do and without that part the job would not get done, at least as we opperate right now. The job would have to be taken up by another Government.”
Each state already has a government i.e. its respective People, who wield final authority by popular vote among franchised citizens: and they created the federal government, not vice-versa.
As stated in the Preamble, the Constititution is not a compact among the “Founder” or “Framers” or “states;” but among the respective Peoples-- i.e. the voters-- of 13 separate nation-states, each choosing that particular union by popular vote in each.
And clearly, the Constitution nowhere expressly unites the states as a single nation-state, and therefore such is not their intention.
Therefore, the Constitution remains an international compact among the Peoples of free, sovereign and independent nation-states; and so it remains, by law. Thus, the Peoples of each state must take back their sovereignty by law, from the federal government which illegally stole it by force and fraud.
I’m having trouble understanding how you reconcile this:
With this:
Glad we’re in there somewhere. But “helping to appoint” someone, doesn’t quite equate to their “reporting to” us, which implies our holding final authority– of which there can only be* one,* by logic.
Rather, once in office, they have plenary authority, until replaced by another elite to which the People do not consent. This is not true democracy, but Totalitarian.
Fortunately, your claim is not only grossly non sequitur, but it is also factually false; for on the contrary, each state is a separate nation-state unto itself, that is supremely owned and ruled by its respective People-- as noted in the Constitution, in which the voters of each state overruled their respective governments to unite the nation-states under a common federal government, but those People retained their respective status as the supreme rulers of separate nation-states.
This is where the confusion sets in, since charlatans conflated the union as a single nation-state; but now that this little misundertanding is cleared up, we can go our own separate ways as democratic nations, as God, the Founders, and most importantly the Peoples of the states intended.
Also, check the dates on the posts you’re replying to. The majority of them are a good 13 years old and some of the members may not even be around any more.
SarahWitch I say this in complete seriousness. Could you please start a thread exposing your manifesto as it were? I’d be fascinated to hear your polictical beliefs and the reasoning behind them.
I’m afraid that would not be accurate, since a federal republic can be either national among sovereigny states, like Brazil, or *international *like the EU-- just like “sovereign states” can be either separate nation-states unto themselves, or subordinate to a larger nation-state.
The USA was a latter such relationship, since they started out as such in 1776, and united as an international federal republic under the Constitution in 1787-9 while never expressly uniting as a single nation-state (in addition to expressly retaining their status as* separate* nation-states).
They had also formed an international federal republic in 1781 under the Articles of Confederation; but each state left this union by its own sovereign authority, by order of its respective voters, in order to form a more perfect union under the Constitution with the voters of the other states respectively.
This was a first in world history, being a truly democratic international union among the Peoples of separate nation-states; however unfortunately it was also a last, since it wasn’t long before charlatans issued propaganda to revise history and usurp power to the federal government, under false claim of single-nation status.
Fortunately, truth is here.
Truth works for me. If you disagree, let’s hear it.
Clearly, those in power have a vested interest in claims that legitimize their claims; but that’s not the way it happened. I’m not revealing anything new here, it’s all standard history.
Mainly, democracy as defined by “consent to government,” requires final authority in the People, as the Constitution established when the voters in each state overruled their governments to choose a new compact among their respective nation-states.
However this changed when charlatans revised history to claim a different version of events.
And the rest is history.
Truth works for me. If you disagree, let’s hear it.
Clearly, those in power have a vested interest in claims that validate their authority; but that’s not the way it happened. I’m not revealing anything new here, it’s standard history, for all to read.
Mainly, democracy as defined by “People’s consent to government,” requires final authority in the People themselves, not a middleman-- as the Constitution established, when the voters in each state overruled their governments to choose a new compact among their respective nation-states.
However this changed when charlatans revised history to claim a different version of events.
And the rest is history, forming a new pagan oligarchy by which a new “illuminati” wield final authority over everyone else without their consent, twisting the Constitution to their whim, much like the Papacy twisted the Bible in the Middle Ages.
Thus, much as Martin Luther exposed these charlatans in 1517 with the actual law nas written, so it would seem fit to expose our modern counterparts doing likewise… exactly 500 years later, as it turns out.
I disagree. But, I’ll let posters with more knowledge of history and the law chime in on that.
To me, you are. It’s like we’ve all read the same murder mystery but have different ideas on who did it. I may be sure it wasn’t Colonel Mustard. But I’m curious why somebody else is sure he didi it.
That’s the problem, i.e. Americans have been dumbed down about their own history, by their own government, to keep them from getting wise… to the point where they no longer bother to even *question *it-- as is the duty of every citizen claiming to be “free.”
Mainly: the federal government claims that the USA is a single nation-state; but it does so via debunked law; for example in the 1800’s, it alternatively claimed that the Declaration of Independence, and then the Articles of Confederation, formed “the Union” as a single nation-state, which the Constitution simply preserved; and it officially continues to cling to those arguments, despite each document declaring outright, that each state is a separate nation-state, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris *confirming *it.
Meanwhile more brazen pundits argue that the federal government is “right, where it counts,” since claiming that the Constitution inherently unites the states as a single nation-state-- despite that inherent arguments cannot do that, as separate nation-states are their own supreme authority, while only a higher authority can argue inherent law against a party.
The Obama White House basically tipped its hand on this, when it issued the following response to the Texas secession-petition:
But that’s not the way it happened. Each state already had the right to alter or abolish their government; and the Constitution was itself an act of such, by the sovereign national authority vesting in each state’s respective People; and this act did nothing to remove that right.
Joseph Goebbels said, that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
And that’s exactly what Lincoln did… in addition to effecting George Washington’s greatest fear, i.e. that “if freedom of speech is ever taken away, then we shall be led dumb and silent like sheep to the slaughter.”
In short, it’s very simple to prove that each state is a nation-state, as well as a popular democracy; and by doing so, and presenting the proof to everyone the world online, then there would be no means to hinder a state seceding, since the the US government has officially shown its hand, and found bluffing… all a state’s people need do is call it.
You keep saying this word. I think it does not mean what you think it means. To wit:
“It is the content of that constitution, and the values of that federation and/or republic that protects the rights of minorities.”
Again, that’s a “pagan oligarchy,” i.e. claiming that simple written dogma will magically enforce divine will, despite a minority holding final authority over the rest. Like I said, that’s what the Papacy claimed for 1000 years during the Middle Ages-- and it’s what Martin Luther exposed exactly 500 years ago, to end the Middle Ages and start the Renaissance.
So it’s quite simple: consent" means that the People have final authority over their government-- not the other way around.
But that’s just the underlying theory; the law is that each state is a separate nation-state unto itself; and its respective People are the supreme owners and rulers.
Thus we’re in a *second *“Middle Ages” wherein a false nation-state twists the law in order to create a Totalitarian Democracy out of the real thing… and all Hell broke loose because of it.
Time for the truth to set us free… and then we can say, “'twas democracy killed the beast.”
King George had a constitution too… didn’t stop him either.