It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by frazzle
LOL, like they're going to vote to reduce their power.
Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by seabag
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states, stating: "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'" The Court contrasted the earlier Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, characterizing the Articles of Confederation as a compact among states, while stating that the Constitution was established not by the states, but by the people.[8]
Likewise, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court stated that the federal Constitution proceeded directly from the people, and was not created by the states. The Court stated that the Constitution was binding on the states and could not be negated by the states. The Court again contrasted the Articles of Confederation, which was established by the states, to the Constitution, which was established by the people.[9]
After the Civil War, in Texas v. White (1869), a case discussing the legal status of the southern states that had attempted to secede, the Supreme Court stated that the union was not merely a compact among states; rather, the union was "something more than a compact."[
edit on 2-2-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Bluesma
I know personally and closely many people who voted for Obama, and support what he is doing. Thy do not believe everyone will be screwed.
So what happens to a revolution when not everyone is on board? Do you think they will simply sit back and watch it happen? This is a conspiracy theorist site, so it attracts mostly those unhappy with the current governent- but that is not a correct representation of the mass....
Originally posted by Bluesma
I know from listening first hand that there are americans that think those talking about doing a revolution are dangerous and crazy and they are saying they need to keep guns because of you!
You have opposition in your own country and they will be active (and armed, of course).
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by seabag
Those states will have fun paying back their share of taxes and debt to the Feds if they break away.
Not. Going. To. Happen. (but you can keep dreaming)
I swear you must work at an infusion center, trying to stir up people for easier watch list targeting.
Originally posted by nenothtu
A "revolution" where everyone isn't on board is a "civil war". Unfortunately for the people you speak of, they won't be able to do much other than sit back and watch it happen. You see, the whole thing is about disarming the populace, and if Obama is their man, and they do everything he tells them, then they won't have anything to jump WITH.
Well that places them in quite the dilemma then, doesn't it? The suits on The Hill tell them to disarm, but they can't, because they're planning this big civil war and all. Decisions, decisions...
BUT, if they insist on keeping their arms, then we already won, because the whole thing is over the refusal of the populace to disarm! Mission accomplished!
It must suck these days to be a liberal - they just really have nowhere to turn!
Originally posted by Bluesma
From their point of view, Obama does what THEY tell them to. See, they wanted socialized medicine, and they found a man to vote into office that would do that , just for example. They feel that there are a lot of conservative people who are uncivilized, selfish and prone to not even trying to control their hostile reactions, so letting them have guns is not a good idea. They are FOR gun control. They are willing to face criminals- but it is the normal everyday redneck that shoots you because he felt irritated by the kind of car you have that they feel is a threat.
So they would also support the government using it's forces to control these uncivilized parts of the population... which is where we circle back to the question of- can you defeat your government with these arms you have?
Against their many other forms of weaponry and technology?
Whoa! I just looked over all my posts here to make sure, but I made no mention of anyone "planning a civil war"!
I gave my opinion on the possibility that, in the event of an attempt at revolution, a civil war might happen instead. That was MY opinion, I take full responsibility for it and no one else that I have heard is "planning" it.
I pointed out that in the event you win the gun issue, then they will be defending themselves with firearms too. But in their minds, they are willing to not have any, if that other part of the population doesn't either.
I pointed out that the people I know and speak of do not insist on keeping arms.... but you bring in a new element that I wasn't aware of- will all this talk of revolution and succession stop if this one question is won???
I have been hearing and reading talk of a violent uprising and revolution for so long, before the recent focus on firearms (yes I know that has been a controversial topic for a long time, but you know what I mean- actions seem to be getting underway..) . I was under the impression that a whole lot of other aspects where motivating this urge to revolt!
It must suck these days to be a liberal - they just really have nowhere to turn!
I don't know. In the USA they kinda have the current adminstration and leader on their side, and those guys have some cool weapons and technology.....
Originally posted by nenothtu
I was discussing this matter with someone, and this was their take on the situation. I thought it worth posting here:
Right now in the US, people are worried about "gun violence", Not that it's causing the most death, but it's what they worry about the most. They don't want to see innocent people killed, and they want to find a way to stop that.
Throughout history, people have wanted to stop different things in their society. In America at the moment, it's just guns. In the past it has been alcohol (prohibition) more recently drugs of varying kinds. No amount of making something illegal has been able to stop a drunk from driving or an addict from getting high. The Taliban tried to stop music and television, yet music and TV still existed in Afghanistan. Hitler tried to kill every Jew, yet underground networks sprang up, and Jews escaped.
What does our society do? Attempt to become the Taliban to stop what we think needs stopped here? How does that not essentially compound the problem?
Right now, in America, it's easier for a mentally ill felon who cannot legally own a gun to purchase one than it is for a law abiding citizen to do so. The problem in America is mental illness. Who else would kill children in a school? The prisons in America are full of mentally ill people who just aren't quite mentally ill enough, so they slip through the cracks. No matter how totalitarian you get, you can't stop the things you want to stop If the Taliban couldn't stop music, how in the hell do you think you can keep mentally ill people from getting guns?
The only way to solve the problem is to find the root of the problem, and fix it there. the root of the problem in America is mental illness. Fix THAT, rather than making something that's already a crime illegal. It's already illegal to kill a school full of children, it's obvious that the mentally ill don't care if it's illegal. Fix that problem.
The problem IS mental illness.
Originally posted by Golf66
Originally posted by frazzle
LOL, like they're going to vote to reduce their power.
Indeed, that is the bottom line isn't it - the SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal Government, when it comes to deciding what is right regarding a State's right to leave the union is not likely to see any real impartiality from a body that stands to lose a good portion of its power from their departure.
The only really impartial body that could decide the legalities of a secession movement would be the United Nations Court or a counsel of third party nations appointed to mediate the dispute. In the course of the legal argument the two parties would have to be viewed as equal entities niether should be viewed as subordinate or subject to the will of the other.
That is like giving one party in a divorce proceeding the authority to decide the case and divide the assets. Hardly likely to be a fair dissolution.
Say one party agreed to let the other act as the "head of the household" and decide what is best for them both for the duration of the marriage; however, at some point the "head of household" becomes an abusive partner and misspends the joint funds or makes arbitrary or capricious decisions that affect both parties.
Would anyone want to stay in such a situation?
In our scenario the US Federal Government has simply imposed a set of rules (through court rulings) that have made dissoulution of the union (divorce) impossible or "illegal" despite the wishes of the other party.
I'd say there is no clearer definition of tyranny than the insistence on a state of perpetual and unbreakable union in which one of the parties is no longer an equal (or willing) participant but has become the servant or subject of the other.
ETA: The Civil War was in effect an abused spouse (the South) leaving the marriage because of irreconcilable differences and the abuser (the North) being bigger and having more money simply decided - Fine, you want to leave then I will come take all your stuff and beat you up until you have no choice but submit to my authority..."
Hardly something that seems to have been settled legally.
edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
The only way to solve the problem is to find the root of the problem, and fix it there. the root of the problem in America is mental illness. Fix THAT, rather than making something that's already a crime illegal. It's already illegal to kill a school full of children, it's obvious that the mentally ill don't care if it's illegal. Fix that problem.
The problem IS mental illness.
What it does NOT say, and what you are glossing over, is that the states are not bound to enforce unconstitutional laws, nor are they bound to allow enforcement of unconstitutional laws withing their borders. You see, doing or allowing that actually NEGATES the Constitution - the two are mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Daedalus
i would TOTALLY not trust the U.N., or any other foreign power, or coalition of powers to preside over deliberations as to what is legal in these united states...
Originally posted by frazzle
I think taking secession to a foreign body for resolution would be a huge huge mistake.
i'd love to see your thoughts on my above post on the mental health topic...
not to complain, but i write all these well thought out, intelligent posts, and they always seem to get ignored.
i agree, we do have SERIOUS mental health issues in this country, and it's not a matter of EVERYONE being crazy, it's a matter of how the individual conditions are evaluated, and treated. The FDA is corrupt..they get paid off by the pharmaceutical companies to approve drugs intended for psychiatric treatment, that the pharma companies KNOW have side effects which include "Mania", "Psychosis", "Violence" "Suicidal Thoughts/Intentions", and "Homicidal Ideation". Yet there are no warnings to the patients taking them, and if there are warnings of these side effects included with the "medication", they are either in the fine print that nobody reads, not communicated to the patient by their "doctor", or are downplayed as being "minimal", or "rare", or "uncommon"....if serious side effects such as the ones i listed above are statistically measurable to a significant degree, that drug should not be given to people.
Originally posted by frazzle
This may sound way oversimplified but just the complete lack of respect ~ respect for self, for others, for property, for life ~ makes everybody crazy. Respect simply isn't being taught and I'd say it hasn't been since the "if it feels good, do it" generation. We've been sex,drugs and rock n rolled to insanity.
Originally posted by seabag
I really don’t have any personal experience with how mental illnesses are diagnosed or treated. I certainly am not qualified to second guess a professional diagnosis and I’m not sure if certain drugs aren’t very helpful to some individuals. I just don’t know. I’m just not knowledgeable enough on this subject to add anything substantive…sorry!