should ohio declare sovereignty ? (2010, how much, purchasing)

[rubber_factory]

Yeah, we tried this back in South Carolina once.

It didn't work out well. Turns out, the federal government will bludgeon you into submission.

[000000]

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

Likewise Ohio has the right to declare independence and secede from the United States of America should it decide to do so. The contract to join the United States of America was voluntarily entered into and as such Ohio is free to voluntarily leave should it wish to exercise that option.

umm, what about the loss of the confederacy in the civil war? texas v. white? or is your opinion more important?

[000000]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

i was not alive in the fifties zeros.. but i am not blind like the majority of our public when it comes to witnessing the rights we are loosing.. maybe all this bailout bs has really pissed me off... why not just give every american citizen 125,000 dollars ? i bet that would stimulate the economy.

the fifties represent the dreams that both parties are selling and the last vestiges of the dominance of "the american dream". from that viewpoint, everything has been falling apart since then. strange, since people have been giving up their rights for the safety of a large government since the new deal. most recently, the bush administration began taking away even more rights in the name of safety and government efficiency.

[OhioUberAlles]

Originally Posted by 000000

umm, what about the loss of the confederacy in the civil war? texas v. white? or is your opinion more important?

One and a half million Union soldiers can enforce the will of their tyrant (Abraham Lincoln) on the people of the South, but no army in the world can make or destroy inherent rights. People have the right to associate or disassociate as they wish. If a state that voluntarily joined the Union wishes to leave, they are free to do so, unless the government wants to openly admit that the nation is not a Republic but rather an Empire, with the colonial possessions not being free to leave and practice self-determination.

[000000]

hey, i agree with you that the closer you can keep your government the better things are. i just know that you are repeating libertarian arguments from a neo-con perspective and the websites you read are not written by lawyers but by angry people who feel marginalized. folk law is not the law. having effective state government is crucial for our federated republic to have a semblance of working. surfing the internet and choosing your own law based on your own advantage is not.

i know a little history, too. 9 out of 13 colonies signed the u.s. constitution, thus making them a union and a single nation-state. rhode island was pressured with economic sanctions to get the final thirteenth colony in the union. then the u.s. goes an absorbs the republic of vermont! the united states has acted like an empire since the beginning. oh, and even though jefferson won the election, hamilton won the argument. the civil war, among other things, settled the question of whether secession is possible and it turns out that it is not (texas v. white). this is something we as americans have to live with. this is what we the people have chosen over time. just as we chose to invade hawaii.

or since i disagree with you on your sources, i must automatically be wrong. you probably aren't even reading this sentence.

[OhioUberAlles]

Originally Posted by 000000

hey, i agree with you that the closer you can keep your government the better things are. i just know that you are repeating libertarian arguments from a neo-con perspective and the websites you read are not written by lawyers but by angry people who feel marginalized. folk law is not the law. having effective state government is crucial for our federated republic to have a semblance of working. surfing the internet and choosing your own law based on your own advantage is not.

i know a little history, too. 9 out of 13 colonies signed the u.s. constitution, thus making them a union and a single nation-state. rhode island was pressured with economic sanctions to get the final thirteenth colony in the union. then the u.s. goes an absorbs the republic of vermont! the united states has acted like an empire since the beginning. oh, and even though jefferson won the election, hamilton won the argument. the civil war, among other things, settled the question of whether secession is possible and it turns out that it is not (texas v. white). this is something we as americans have to live with. this is what we the people have chosen over time. just as we chose to invade hawaii.

or since i disagree with you on your sources, i must automatically be wrong. you probably aren't even reading this sentence.

I don't have any sources; this isn't the sort of argument where you bring in sources. "According to retired lieutenant colonel Smith, secession is the absolute right of the people" or "according to Professor Jones secession is wrong."

Secession is an inherent right that the people can attempt to exercise. Whether or not they succeed is a matter primarily decided on the battlefield. I cannot cite "experts" to make the case for or against secession because it is not a scientific argument. If you believe the Moon is made of cheese I can use science to definitively establish that you are wrong. If you believe secession is wrong (or right) there's no way that science can be used to show anything either way. It's not a scientific matter; it is primarily a philosophical matter.

The civil war didn't settle anything, it didn't crush the right of the South to obtain independence, it just proved that the South lacked the industrial capabilities to sustain a war as well as the military capabilities to win a war. Their defeat didn't prove that secession was right or wrong, all it proved was that the South lost the war, that's it, nothing else. Likewise the Supreme Court case Texas v White proved nothing, that was the victor's justice, it was as transparently bogus and wrong as Nuremberg or the trial of Saddam Hussein.


If you want to leave your job and your boss beats the tar out of you so you cannot leave, that doesn't mean you were wrong for wanting to leave, or that you never had the right to leave, it just means you lost the fight and were unable to actually leave, it doesn't mean you never had the right to leave. You always retain your inherent rights, whether or not you are able to actively exercise them. They are always there for you even if you have to work your way up to being able to actively exercise them (due to having to overcome oppression/suppression).

[000000]

so, for you, in this great land built on law the constitution means nothing. the states gave up some of their freedom which they had in the articles of confederation to form a stronger whole. since the constitution itself is still in effect (including the second amendment so you can form a militia to revolt against abusive power) the several states party to it are still bound by it. the civil war, among other things, was a question of whether or not a state could leave. all of the confederacy agreed to the terms of reconstruction and are back in. we are all stuck with each other, for better or worse, as the united states of america.

laws are base standards of conduct. they have nothing to do with science. you are simply trying to add science into this discussion as a red herring. i can understand why you need to make the appeal to science; you are losing the argument ansd need to change topic.

[OhioUberAlles]

Originally Posted by 000000

so, for you, in this great land built on law the constitution means nothing. the states gave up some of their freedom which they had in the articles of confederation to form a stronger whole. since the constitution itself is still in effect (including the second amendment so you can form a militia to revolt against abusive power) the several states party to it are still bound by it. the civil war, among other things, was a question of whether or not a state could leave. all of the confederacy agreed to the terms of reconstruction and are back in. we are all stuck with each other, for better or worse, as the united states of america.

laws are base standards of conduct. they have nothing to do with science. you are simply trying to add science into this discussion as a red herring. i can understand why you need to make the appeal to science; you are losing the argument ansd need to change topic.

Red herring? Losing? Excuse me but... NOT AT ALL.

You're asking me to empirically prove that secession is a right, that's not possible. Empirically prove that people deserve to be treated with common decency... If I refuse to accept that common decency is something to be valued or that people deserve it, then you have no case. There is no "A+B+CxD = Secession is right." It's not a math equation, it's one of a number of the rights of sovereign and free people.

I believe that secession is a right that has inherent value and that it is the right of any power/territory who wishes to exercise it. What they voluntarily join they can voluntarily leave.

The Confederacy agreed to terms of Reconstruction? Are you on crack? There were hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers spread throughout the Confederate States of America, they had burnt down so much infrastructure, raped, maimed, tortured, and they were basically holding guns at the heads of the Southern people. You think the South agreed to Reconstruction? If you think that you're either incredibly naive and ignorant or you're malicious.

The states gave up nothing (except the right to conduct diplomacy with foreign powers and a few other relatively minor things), they are still able to leave to pursue their own destiny, free of the centralized government of the United States of America. They never gave up their right to exercise their freedom. You cannot give up such a right, it is inalienable.

The "Civil War" as you call it, settled nothing. Furthermore it isn't proper to call it a "Civil War" it was a war of Independence/Secession. A civil war is where two or more powers fight for control of a government, or where a faction within the nation attempts to overthrow the government and become the new governing body of the nation. The Confederates were not seeking to march to Washington D.C., topple the government of the United States, and become the new government of the United States. They were seeking to break-away from the United States and maintain their independence. The Confederacy didn't start the war and they had no designs on the Federal government of the United States of America. It was a war between two separate nations, not a civil war between rebels/insurgents and government forces.

[Future Trooper]

I never knew that Indiana declared Sovereignty.

YaY Indiana!!

[000000]

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

Red herring? Losing? Excuse me but... NOT AT ALL.

capital letters! you win.

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

You're asking me to empirically prove that secession is a right

nope. i am telling you that it is impossible in constitutional law.

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

I believe

your independent belief certainly is not scientific proof either.

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

The Confederacy agreed to terms of Reconstruction? Are you on crack? There were hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers spread throughout the Confederate States of America, they had burnt down so much infrastructure, raped, maimed, tortured, and they were basically holding guns at the heads of the Southern people. You think the South agreed to Reconstruction? If you think that you're either incredibly naive and ignorant or you're malicious.

the former confederate state powers, who acted on behalf of the people, agreed to those terms. they may not have wanted to do, but they obligated themselves to follow through with the terms of the agreements. therefore they are states again.

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

The states gave up nothing (except the right to conduct diplomacy with foreign powers and a few other relatively minor things), they are still able to leave to pursue their own destiny, free of the centralized government of the United States of America. They never gave up their right to exercise their freedom. You cannot give up such a right, it is inalienable.

no, they aren't able to leave the union as a matter of law. your opinion is strictly for your political convenience and not of law.

Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles

The "Civil War" as you call it, settled nothing. Furthermore it isn't proper to call it a "Civil War" it was a war of Independence/Secession. A civil war is where two or more powers fight for control of a government, or where a faction within the nation attempts to overthrow the government and become the new governing body of the nation. The Confederates were not seeking to march to Washington D.C., topple the government of the United States, and become the new government of the United States. They were seeking to break-away from the United States and maintain their independence. The Confederacy didn't start the war and they had no designs on the Federal government of the United States of America. It was a war between two separate nations, not a civil war between rebels/insurgents and government forces.

i do see your point, but if i were to call it the war of northern aggression you likely would not have known what i was talking about. the american civil war is the commonly accepted name for the conflict which occured in the early 1860's. apparently, you are still fighting it in your mind. i'd rather live in 2009 although that means i have to deal with thinking about the imperial war of middle destabilization and the imperially just but underfunded revenge war.

the reasons for the civil war are a different discussion than the one we are having now. the civil war discussion is not always candidly held (this is likely due to people refusing to brook any dissent. i am fine if you disagree with me, but you seem to be taking it way too hard that i think you are poorly arguing your side.). secession, for all practical purposes, was invalidated by the aftermath of the civil war.