People can overrule the government. Article V outlines the way to amend the Constitution. Every two years we vote for Congressman and 1/3 of the Senate. We (through the electoral college, a system “we” approved) vote for a President every four years.
In your state, there are similar procedures. In what way are the people unable to overrule the government?
When they choose to. Nullification and secession simply means they changed their mind-- which, as their own supreme rulers, they have every right to do.
Stockholders allow their corporations to be managed by managers and CEO’s as well; but if they call a stockholder’s meeting, then they say what goes. Same with voters in a state-convention.
Okay, you just missed the plot, and I’m not going to teach you basic history. Take care.
Ya’huh
nu’uh
uh…?
Lets just cut to the chase: is this an individual right?
You don’t. Each state is a separate sovereign nation-state by law, just like any sovereign nation in the world, as with the states of the EU or the UN.
Under the Constitution, they delegated certain powers to state and federal governments, differently than they had under the Constitution.
Each state remained a separate sovereign nation-state unto itself, and its respective People remained the sovereign rulers thereof-- irrespective of all agreements contained in the Constitution: the People-- i.e. the voters-- of the state, held final authority, to exercise or not as they damn-well pleased-- by law.
And that law was never changed.
That’s how it HAPPENED.
As opposed to everything else.
So the People of every state had, and still have, the same right to secede, as the UK had in Brexit; because the USA, like the EU, is a voluntary international union of sovereign nation-states.
Plural.
And no criminal act can change the law.
You can keep saying this over and over and over and over again without any cites or documentation and it does not make it so. In fact it is not so. I’m done.
I encourage you to [del]educate yourself[/del] find someone to educate you on First Nations’ inherent sovergenity as established through oral culture.
Yes, the right of the People. The state is owned and ruled, equally and in common among the individual citizen-voters-- who thus delegate their individual will regarding the state, to the state and federal government – or may, at will, vote in state convention, to exercise their right to alter or abolish it, and institute new government.
Just like any with corporation or commonly-owned piece of land… except each state is a separate sovereign nation as well.
In other words, you lost the debate.
A debate requires the debators to successfully explain their positions. You have tried to explained your position to learned people who have been giving due consideration to your facts and arguments, but have not been persuaded by you, so you have lost the debate.
No. As George Washington warned: “If Freedom of Speech is ever taken away, then we shall be led, dumb and silent, like sheep to the slaughter.”
That’s why Lincoln’s first act was to censor free speech under suspension of Habeas Corpus, and* Ex parte Merryman.*
Thus, we all lost. Except those few in power… but even what they lost is something bigger.
You know, this thread IS an interesting insight into the sovereign citizen mindset.
Once something is written down in an official capacity - and especially if it contains useful phrasing (e.g. the treaty which ended the Revoluntionary War), it becomes LAW. Once deemed LAW, the person acquires the power to “enforce” it, because that’s what people do with law (jurisdiction - as it really exists - isn’t really a concern for sovereign citizens).
A few mental gymnastics later, you’ve convinced yourself that the LAW exists which entitles you to all sorts of legal immunity, and it’s simply not being followed because people don’t know the rights they have. Much of American history has been en example of extra-judicial power grabs. As a philosophy, it’s very much the opposite of legal realism.
The American Revolution was a criminal act that resulted in the creation of the sovereign United States of America.
Do you seriously expect her to respond to this? Of course if she does, she’ll no doubt simply say that the original documents were faked.
I see you are incapable of understanding a legal argument.
Nah, that’s just the line used by racist revisionists to try to sweep away slavery, Jim Crowe, their fight against civil rights, and their oppression of blacks today. Surely you’re not in that camp.
In this forum, no, but in “The Pit” forum, yes.
**
Just silly arguments to avoid why that sovereignty was called for. For the confederacy it was national sovereignty to continue slavery.
Even high schoolers know that.
[QUOTE] **Present John**: Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course US History, and today we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American history: What caused the Civil War?Just kidding, it’s not a confusing question at all; slavery caused the civil war.
Past John: Mr. Green, Mr Green, what about, like, state’s rights, and nationalism, economics?
Present John: Me from the past, your senior year of high school, you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about a hundred eight-two years old, and you will say something to him in class about state’s rights, and Mr. Fleming will turn to you and he will say
“A state’s right to what, sir?”
And for the first time in your snotty little life you will be well and truly speechless.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t say what you claim it says. No amount of italics will make it say that. Even it the1783 Treaty of Paris defines the Unites Sates in 2017, it does not say what you claim.
Then,
Make this work. These two assertions appear to be irreconcilable.
It is worth noting that 37 of the States in the US were established by the US government. Several of the CSA states – AL, MS, TN – were carved out of amorphous territory to the west of existing states (GA, NC), so their claim to individual sovereignty must be based on their membership in the Union which established them. Once they declared secession, the foundation of their existence, as far as the US was concerned, is gone. What the People of those states wanted was kind of irrelevant until they had established themselves as sovereign nation entities, which they failed to do either through defense or through negotiation.
Perhaps you could direct us to the second best expert on the law, who might be able to clarify your positions?
How would* you* know what is and what is not customary on these boards?