Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


I expect it mattered to yhe people who did die…

The authorising authority was part and parcel to the change. Neither the paper nor the words written there are “the authority”, merely an expression of “the authority’s” will. Here in America, it’s “the people” who are the authority, their will expressed through “the states” and “congress” etc. by way of the electoral process. (How well that holds is debateable, but thats the ideal and that debate is off topic)


Nor do I need to cite anything that “changes that fact” because the articles were not higher in authority than the Declaration of Independence which founded this country.

Until your side is able to abolish or overthrow the United States and establish a country in its place under a new authority, none of your attempts to ignore the Rights and Responsibilities of citizens will be legitimate or carry the burden of honor.

It was legal, right and necessary for the Articles of Confederation to be abolished and a better system of government to be adopted in its place, the moment the better system becomes a hindrance to the Rights of the people it will once again be people’s Right and Responsibility to cast it off and try again.

All of those who live in the comfort of tyranny will protest but their cries will be no more relevant than the whining of Rhode Island over the abolishment of the Articles that you so lament.




The government DOES “arbitrarily station officials on your property,” AS, If you doubt it, try getting by without paying your so-called “property taxes” for a few years.


So rules aren’t rules then? Nothing in the Articles were binding, even though it said it was?


Which they did by first breaking the law.

Sorry qix, but you have not altered this fact. The Standard was changes made in complete consensus, yet they enacted not just changes but a completely different government without that consensus.

Everything else was after-the-fact. Nothing you presented changes what they did, you’re just offering justifications for why they broke the law.

But need I remind that my position is that the law should be broken, under the right circumstances?
I’m not condemning what was done; I’m saying the law was broken. That’s it.


Only as binding as the states at large were willing to accept. Just as no iteration of congress can bind subsequent iterations, even if they vote unanimously that their will be codified law until the heat death of the universe, the congress of states could not bind subsequent ones.

If more than 30 states today agree to abandon the constitution, the government falls. Period. It will cease to have any meaning, as it will no longer have “the consent of the governed”, even if twenty states really really really want to keep it and force the other states to continue to abide by it. The 20 states that want to keep it have that right, imho, but they will be clinging to failure, and will not be taken very seriously.


They “broke the law” when they declared independence from the British crown. So what? We have, in point of fact, 50 States in the union today and have had for 58 years now and 48 States for much of the 142 years prior to that.


They’d be breaking the law. And again, I submit that’s warranted sometimes. I’m not condemning it.


And when they created a new Government without all of the State’s approval, as the Articles called for.

We had a process, and they broke it.


Um, no they wouldn’t, they would be exercising their rights guaranteed under the 10th amendment, Abe Lincoln be ****ed.


They are not “binding” if they are destroying or violating the precepts of the Union that was established via the Declaration of Independence, those Principles are our highest authority unless the Nation they established is abolished and another takes its place.

The United States is a group of States, not a government; any manifestation of government that we try in any jurisdiction within the United States is subservient to the vision declared at our founding.


Yes they would, if you’re talking about a super-majority to hold some sort of Convention to invalidate the Constitution, you need more than 30.

To be precise, you need 34.


No, I’m saying secession is legal, and 30 states doing it at once (or in close succession) would most likely collapse the government as currently consituted in the remainder of the union.


Not unilaterally no, the Supreme Court ruled on that:

Secession can be legal (in theory) but there’s a process.


The tenth amendment is pretty plain. Any power not delegated to the federal government, nor forbidden to the states is retained by the states or the people. There’s no getting around the plain language. Nowhere is the power to compel continued membership delegated to the federal government, nowhere is the power to secede forbidden to the states. It says what it says, not what any black robed tyrant “interprets” it to say.


James Madison himself said no. As did the Federalists in general.

Under the Constitution, a unilateral break would be illegal.


Hasn’t stopped him before…


Article and clause, please…


When you ask for that he just name drops “opinions” that are found nowhere in law and are usually “quoted” out of context.

It is the Right and responsibility of citizens to cast off any government that becomes an enemy to the perpetuation of the ideas that we were founded on; the idea that a wholly corrupt entity like the Supreme Court must give us permission to practice our Rights is a staple only the Extreme Left embrace.