Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the risk of further thread drift...regarding the "right of secession" hiding in plain view in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Patrick Henry's take in the 1780's:
Quote:
Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.
Andrew Jackson's presidential opinion in 1833:
Quote:
But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.
James Madison, called the Father of the Constitution, found no such "right of secession" in the document he helped to create.
Even the full Supreme Court weighed in on the supposed right in 1969's Texas vs. White, holding that the Constitution didn't grant the right of secession to the states and that the ordinances and acts of secession within the former Confederate states were not legal.
Anyone can each pick different people whose opinions support or deny the right of secession. Memphis1979 has one Chief Supreme Court Justice and those people who broke the peace and started the war on your side of the argument.
I've got the Father of the Constitution, several Presidents and the Supreme Court on my side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Just because you repeat a lie enough, does not mean its true.
Which from the start has been my point about your fictions. If you must persist in them, please have the decency to take it to your own thread.
We will never know, will we. Because Lincoln went to war.
It is better to not know something as a fact that didn't exist. Oh, and how could Lincoln go to war when he wasn't even the President? Sounds like the "logic" I've seen people use on Obama. The south had already put the loser (Jefferson Davis) as the President of the confederacy, and attacked Federal Forts weeks before Abraham Lincoln took the office.
Quote:
Sometimes compromise takes time. The rest of the world took the time to fix this issue without killing a million of their productive citizens.
Yes it does. The guy you've been driven to villify tried for a while.
Thats true, but before it, where did it say you couldn't leave the union.
Here's a hint, it didn't, which is why the Chief Justice told Lincoln the south was legal.
And Lincoln wasn't the President of the Union when the South had formed a confederacy (unconstitutional) and implanted Jefferson Davis (the loser) as the President. In fact, the south also took federal establishment by force, a few weeks before Lincoln was sworn in. I hope, at least, that you don't blame Abraham Lincoln to be responsible for secession?
Article I/Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Article I/Section 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.
USC Title 10, 332 (1807):
Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Lets say Cuba decided to send troops to Key west. I think we'd see that as an act of war. Lincoln did that to the south, the south may have fired first, but Lincoln provoked it by sending troops into southern territory.
If the Key West represented a group of Cuban states seceding at the whims of the ruling elite, and fired first, Cuba will be well within its rights to march and throw the rebellion out.
And what do you think of the Whiskey Rebellion and its suppression by George Washington?
One final point is that the overwhelming use of force is necessary to enslave an entire population. There is only one entity that possesses the overwhelming use of force.
You got that right, and the force is people's stupidity.
BTW, what entity is that according to you liberts?
I hate it when anyone says "I must recognize" Why? because you say so?
Prior to those times laws were the opposite, they promoted and legislated segregation and discrimination.
Good afternoon to you,
That is good to hear. I would think the stereotype would be that country fans would cause you some issues, I am glad to hear my "predjudice" is wrong. Do you think a lot of it is you don't look for issues, or you don't care what people think? I tend to be that way, I look for positives more than negatives.
I'm glad too, this was my first country concert, and it was a huge crowd so if I had any problems I'd be very outnumbered. To answer your question, I usually look at situations in a neutral to positive way. I keep my eyes open, but don't go out of my way to look for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
I agree about scenario two, behavior is everything to me. I wonder if scenario one could be perceived as the "non-ghetto whites" are looked at because people might think they are an undercover cop or someone there to hassle them?
I have had people tell me often that I look like an under cover cop, it always made me laugh. (I enjoy dressing like an obvious tourist)
Could be, but I'm also referring to situations with old whites showing up in a hood barber shop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi
Experience is key, I am sure some of it is luck of the draw, some is people looking for issues and some is actual reality.
I have gone to many Jazz and Funk shows and I am usually the minority, being that I go in the way I go everywhere, looking for the positives, I never have any issues and end up usually making friends with people around me. (After they realize I am not a cop :-)
Who says our country isn't changing, the nerdy white guy goes to Jazz and Funk shows and the black guy to country shows. Talk about breaking sterotypes!
It's funny how everyone thinks you're a cop. It's a good highlight of many Blacks' experiences with police. But I'm glad your experiences are positive once the cop thing is out of the picture.
I'm a fan of folks who break stereotypes, I believe you and I would get along very well.
Thanks for the post. But, from the other side of the fence, I'm white and have been in businesses in predominantly poor black areas. I actually felt as though the staff were going out of their way to make me feel welcome. Might not always be the case... things may be different in a bar or club or something (I'm specifically thinking of a grocery store that I was in).
On the other hand, I've walked past a guy who I'm pretty sure was a member of the black panther party (or some similar organization) who was standing on a street corner. He was wearing some sort of uniform and looked genuinely annoyed when I smiled and said hello.
I'm sure that black folks experience similar stuff... the sort of thing I mentioned above would make anyone uneasy, but I don't think it's the norm in either case. Black panthers, neo-nazis, and KKK members are around, but I think that the vast majority of people are genuinely friendly and accepting once you get to know them.
"...and looked genuinely annoyed when I smiled and said hello."
I love that! That's the best way to get under the skin of a prejudiced person; to challenge their own ignorant thinking by killing them with kindness. This is an example of why I don't care if someone I meet is a racist in their thoughts. Even if I have no clue, at least polite behavior drives them nuts!
I'm glad too, this was my first country concert, and it was a huge crowd so if I had any problems I'd be very outnumbered. To answer your question, I usually look at situations in a neutral to positive way. I keep my eyes open, but don't go out of my way to look for anything.
Could be, but I'm also referring to situations with old whites showing up in a hood barber shop.
It's funny how everyone thinks you're a cop. It's a good highlight of many Blacks' experiences with police. But I'm glad your experiences are positive once the cop thing is out of the picture.
I'm a fan of folks who break stereotypes, I believe you and I would get along very well.
Country is one style I have not been able to get into, unless it is old school bluegrass style. But seeing just about any music live is fun.
Regarding the Barbershop issue, could it be that old whites are stereotyped as racists? Percentage wise they do have a higher number of racists.
I am sure we would get along, first off we are two of the few people here who aren't name calling and arguing.
What is your view on the Drug war, do you feel it adds to race issues? I do, I think it has been one of the major downfalls of the last century.
I think this guy did a great straight to the heart reason for ending it.
(Jefferson Davis) as the President of the confederacy, and attacked Federal Forts weeks before Abraham Lincoln took the office.
.
They were not US Federal Forts. They were property of the Confederate States of America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talk about breaking sterotypes!
