If We Let The Secessionists Go, What Would Their 'Nation' Be Like?

That's fairly interesting, seeing how this forum is full of biased people who like to find the worst in black people and this president, but you chose to call out me...

Seems a little biased based upon my political non-affiliation....

I jus sayin....

Do you see how utterly useless these types of posts are? If not, then just ignore me because I've already wasted more time on it than I would like.

 

I'm glad you noticed that about the forum, so you also understand why it was so ironic to call johnny-c out like that.

 

I find it ironic that you call me out like that...Did you have anything, anything at all, to say that might, in even some small way, be relevant to the topic of this thread?

 

first, writes off-topic post,

then whines about off-topic post...

ironic.

 

If you bothered reading the entire exchange I wouldn't have to explain this to you but since you obviously didn't then I do.

I responded directly to the OPs question of what a "secessionist nation" might look like by posting a link to the Blue Ridge Liberty Project. Johnny replied that it looked good but that, even though they have been successful, he thought that it would be destroyed by violent people. I then asked him WHY he was so pessimistic about a community that has already succeeded and "Why is a community based on the concept of self-ownership and non-aggression so far fetched in [his] mind" (that's the supposedly "off topic" post that you just quoted).

That, sir, is directly on topic. On the other hand, since I have entered this thread I haven't seen you make a single on-topic post. You're just moaning about some irrelevant nonsense concerning "people who like to find the worst in black people and this president," neither of which have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand.

Do.
You.
Understand.
Now?

 

I responded directly to what you wrote in your post. You didn't like being shown your bias, and are being defensive.

On the other hand, I say let the white nationalists start the secession, and the town of Leith would be a good starting point. Maybe then there will be nothing for them to complain about, but I doubt it.

 

I don't know that I'd call it defensive so much as I'd call it rolling my eyes while humoring your rambling nonsense much more than it warranted.

I'm not really sure how to respond to your support for white nationalist secession. Good for you...I guess? I'm more of an advocate for peaceful coexistence amongst humans regardless of race or ethnicity but I understand that many people can't look past trivial differences like skin tone and, for them, every issue begins and ends with that one shallow and skewed vantage point.

 

The south would not have to be in the closet about being racist anymore, they can just go back to discriminating against blacks without the democrats to stop them or call them out on it.

 

There are certain things where the federal government is prohibited from passing laws though. The constitution gives states sole authority in commerce between states, for example. The federal government can not interfere with states making trade deals, such as giving tax breaks to companies from other states, though, it is against the constitution for one state to place tarriffs on goods from other states.

 

Yes, but the only legal authority to deem a law unconstitutional belongs to SCOTUS. A unconstitutional law, still has legal standing until they make the ruling. For example, DOMA is technically unconstitutional on the grounds that is allows states to refuse to recognize legal marriages from other states. The constitution requires that all states recognize all legal licenses from other states, But, DOMA is still legaly binding because SCOTUS has no ruled it unconstritutional in it's entirety.

 

would depend on what state really, some states could very well manage on their own and others wouldnt last a week.

Texas,Nevada,California,NY and Florida could very well be successful if they played their cards right. Mississippi,Michigan......not a chance in hell.

- - - Updated - - -

how much do you know about the south, or do you get all your info from movies?

 

Because that is how I respond to certain posts.

 

I can see your point. Legal wrangling is a 'complex' business. And that is why I'm certain that the U.S.S.C. must play the role that it does.

 

Exactly!! Some don't want to hear that they do (in here) what virtually everyone does at one or many points.

Right about now, I ADMIT that I'm not tolerant of most Right leaning ideas, values or actions. (I may surely lighten-up later; but NOT voting for any Conservatives for the rest of my life... will be a personal commitment.)

 

True in cases involving federal law ( laws passed by Congress ) Treaties, and cases between states, presuming those cases fall within the purview of the authority assigned to the general government. Otherwise, the laws left unto the people and/or the states, is within their purview, and can be declared unconstitutional.

Precisely why we have thousands of bad laws upon the books.

BTW, the decision by SCOTUS is the Law of The Case and not the Law of The Land, as only Congress can make law.

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/judiciary/Law_of_the_Land.html

 

Actually, no. SCOTUS has the power to deem state laws unconstitutional as well. All state laws must fall within the legal bounds of constitutional US law. And state judges must always place federal law before state law when whenever the two contridict.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

Wow. Correct!! It is amazing to me how all that 10th Grade government stuff I learned, STILL applies today.

 

Only if those federal laws are within the purview of the constitutionally assigned functions of Congress and/or the general government.

Simply, I ask again; who created the federal government and how did it/they do so?. Why would the creator/s ever take a subservient role to the created?

 

The passing of law is the constitutional powers assigned to congress. So all federal laws that do not violate some part of the constitution are the supreme laws, and override state law.

 

Until the SCOTUS determines it to be constitutional, which most laws never get that far, who determines the constitutionality of a law?

Simply, I ask again; who created the federal government and how did it/they do so?. Why would the creator/s ever take a subservient role to the created?

 

Did you know that most conservatives see a new civil war as almost inevitable?

 

Most laws passed are constitutional. The few that are not can be ruled on by federal judges, but in the end, most big issues goes to SCOTUS.

And even if a lower judge rules a law unconstitutional, SCOTUS has the power to make a final ruling that overrides them.

 

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

(And a gun rack in every unit.)

 

I don't know if it is "most", but certainly there are too many who actually believe that "war" will take this nation anywhere good.

That's one reason I have consciously leaned AWAY from supporting most with Conservative ideologies.