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.
I'm not talking about ramming beliefs down anyone's throats. I'm talking about Truth vs error. We can tolerate a little error for the greater purpose of societal peace, but we ought never to sacrifice, compromise, or silence Truth.
Will you please define your "we"? It's not clear if you mean government or The Catholic Church, because you seem to be switching back and forth.
I'm a minority and I'm enlisting your support in establishing an independent Catholic monarchy on a 1/2 acre of land that I own. I don't consent to being governed either by the government in Washington DC or in Montgomery and intend to declare myself King and establish peaceful diplomatic relations between my Kingdom and any nation surrounding it. Can I count on your emotional, if not financial support?
The US already determined that secession is not legal, so, no, you can't leave the United States. There IS a procedure for a state to be formed from part of an existing state. If you decide to take that route, the first step is to get the permission from the state legislature. Then you can petition the federal government for statehood, but I doubt you could meet the minimum population requirement.
The US already determined that secession is not legal, so, no, you can't leave the United States. There IS a procedure for a state to be formed from part of an existing state. If you decide to take that route, the first step is to get the permission from the state legislature. Then you can petition the federal government for statehood, but I doubt you could meet the minimum population requirement.
Thank you for confirming that you, along with phetaroi, MinivanDriver, and myself, don't believe in the concept of "consent of the governed" except in a very limited sense.
Thank you for confirming that you, along with phetaroi, MinivanDriver, and myself, don't believe in the concept of "consent of the governed" except in a very limited sense.
"The consent of the governed" does mean that every individual gets to do whatever he or she wants. If that's what you think, you're incredibly immature. Protecting the rights of minorities also does not mean that every individual gets to do whatever he or she wants.
Clearly you don't believe in the concept of "the consent of the governed".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Not in an absolute sense, and neither do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
As long as it protects minorities, yes I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
"The consent of the governed" does mean that every individual gets to do whatever he or she wants. If that's what you think, you're incredibly immature.
You said it, Sam - not me. Pardon me for taking your words at face value
Thank you for confirming that you, along with phetaroi, MinivanDriver, and myself, don't believe in the concept of "consent of the governed" except in a very limited sense.
The "consent of the governed" was exercised in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified and again at least 18 more times when Amendments were sent out for approval. The "consent" was denied several times, and those Amendments did not become part of the Constitution. You can't have "consent of the governed" without governing taking place. What you are advocating in anarchy.
You might want to see if a sovereign citizens group is nearby that you could join. It sounds like you'd agree with some of their theories.
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.