Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Secession

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

The Federal Government does have jurisdiction over territories purchased from other states (both foreign and domestic), such as the former Louisiana territory.

The constitution also says,
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

In other words, the Federal Government has the authority to make rules and regulations for federal territories, like the former northwest territory, or Guam. Also nothing in the constitution should be interpreted as granting the Federal government power over the states, nor should it be interpreted as granting one state power over another state.

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

Since the Federal government does not have jurisdiction within state boarders, because the jurisdiction is reserved for the states, the States have a right to secede from the Union. The Federal government only has jurisdiction over territories owned by the Federation and military districts. The federal government is only responsible for interstate and international affairs. Therefore States have a right to secede, because only they have jurisdiction over their state.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:19:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

The Federal Government does have jurisdiction over territories purchased from other states (both foreign and domestic), such as the former Louisiana territory.

The constitution also says,
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

In other words, the Federal Government has the authority to make rules and regulations for federal territories, like the former northwest territory, or Guam. Also nothing in the constitution should be interpreted as granting the Federal government power over the states, nor should it be interpreted as granting one state power over another state.


The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.


Since the Federal government does not have jurisdiction within state boarders, because the jurisdiction is reserved for the states, the States have a right to secede from the Union. The Federal government only has jurisdiction over territories owned by the Federation and military districts. The federal government is only responsible for interstate and international affairs. Therefore States have a right to secede, because only they have jurisdiction over their state.

There's a precedent regarding that. It's called the Civil War.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think Constitutional scholars have probably squared everything away. Whether to a satisfactory extent, is, of course, relative.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:33:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, things aren't that way.
So you have two possibilities to accept.
Either it doesn't say what you think it does.
Or it does and has been useless to stop it.

Constitutions are great aren't they?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The South tried that. It didn't work.

The legal precedent was set, Constitution or not, with the Civil War in which we said that states cannot secede.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:40:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:19:41 PM, TheBossToss wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

The Federal Government does have jurisdiction over territories purchased from other states (both foreign and domestic), such as the former Louisiana territory.

The constitution also says,
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

In other words, the Federal Government has the authority to make rules and regulations for federal territories, like the former northwest territory, or Guam. Also nothing in the constitution should be interpreted as granting the Federal government power over the states, nor should it be interpreted as granting one state power over another state.


The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.


Since the Federal government does not have jurisdiction within state boarders, because the jurisdiction is reserved for the states, the States have a right to secede from the Union. The Federal government only has jurisdiction over territories owned by the Federation and military districts. The federal government is only responsible for interstate and international affairs. Therefore States have a right to secede, because only they have jurisdiction over their state.

There's a precedent regarding that. It's called the Civil War.

You are assuming the war was justified.

After the War everyone in the south had to naturalize back into the US, because they were no longer citizens of the US. Every southerner had to swear allegiance to the Union in order to regain citizenship. Furthermore the south was not immediately reentered into the union; because the south seceded they were no longer US states. For example, Georgia did not re-enter the Union until June 15, 1870.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:45:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:33:44 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Well, things aren't that way.
So you have two possibilities to accept.
Either it doesn't say what you think it does.
Or it does and has been useless to stop it.

Constitutions are great aren't they?

technically the south did secede, but were conquered via invasion. Just like in 1832 when a section of New Hampshire seceded from New Hampshire to form the Republic of Indian Stream. The Republic of Indian Stream lasted 3 years until it was voluntarily annexed by New Hampshire in 1835.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:52:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

It says that the federal government can establish a district with consent of the state, but it doesn't say that the federal government has no jurisdiction, that's your invention. The selection you quoted has more to do with establishing a national capital than federal/state balance of power.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 6:56:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also says,
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

In other words, the Federal Government has the authority to make rules and regulations for federal territories, like the former northwest territory, or Guam. Also nothing in the constitution should be interpreted as granting the Federal government power over the states, nor should it be interpreted as granting one state power over another state.

The Constitution exists with the SOLE purpose of empowering the federal government when the Articles of Confederation created a disparate and disorganized nation and the federal government had no power to force anything.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:15:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 6:52:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

It says that the federal government can establish a district with consent of the state, but it doesn't say that the federal government has no jurisdiction, that's your invention. The selection you quoted has more to do with establishing a national capital than federal/state balance of power.

Have you ever read the constitution? Anyone who has ever read the constitution can see as plain as day that the Federal government only has authority to to deal with interstate and foreign affairs.

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

"A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:21:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:15:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:52:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

It says that the federal government can establish a district with consent of the state, but it doesn't say that the federal government has no jurisdiction, that's your invention. The selection you quoted has more to do with establishing a national capital than federal/state balance of power.

Have you ever read the constitution? Anyone who has ever read the constitution can see as plain as day that the Federal government only has authority to to deal with interstate and foreign affairs.

Yes I have actually, and I know for a fact that you're using lengthy misquoted text to mask the vacuity of your argument.

You also conveniently neglect to place the Constitution in historical context. What exactly was it designed to improve and why did the articles fail? An understanding of that is enough to refute secession.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

Basically, property came before jurisdiction, not the other way around
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

What does this have to do with the Constitutional legitimacy of secession or the power of the federal government? The federal government has the power to tax (established in the constitution). Your philosophical qualms with that aren't really relevant. By law, the federal government has jurisdiction without ownership, so DanT is wrong in the way he conflates the 2.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:29:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

What does this have to do with the Constitutional legitimacy of secession or the power of the federal government? The federal government has the power to tax (established in the constitution). Your philosophical qualms with that aren't really relevant. By law, the federal government has jurisdiction without ownership, so DanT is wrong in the way he conflates the 2.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional aspect, but very much to do with the moral question of seccession
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:31:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:29:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

What does this have to do with the Constitutional legitimacy of secession or the power of the federal government? The federal government has the power to tax (established in the constitution). Your philosophical qualms with that aren't really relevant. By law, the federal government has jurisdiction without ownership, so DanT is wrong in the way he conflates the 2.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional aspect, but very much to do with the moral question of seccession

Your arguments for secession also turn out to be arguments against Democracy, governmental power, and basically the whole western political establishment. It's a futile argument to support secession on those principles before actually attacking the establishment that prevents it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:40:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:36:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:31:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:29:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

What does this have to do with the Constitutional legitimacy of secession or the power of the federal government? The federal government has the power to tax (established in the constitution). Your philosophical qualms with that aren't really relevant. By law, the federal government has jurisdiction without ownership, so DanT is wrong in the way he conflates the 2.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional aspect, but very much to do with the moral question of seccession

Your arguments for secession also turn out to be arguments against Democracy, governmental power, and basically the whole western political establishment. It's a futile argument to support secession on those principles before actually attacking the establishment that prevents it.

Who said that secession automatically leads to another state? To secede, one need only to deny the legitimacy of the central state and not submit to it. This can be done by large areas like the CSA or individual communities or people. There's no prerequisite to establishing another state.

If its proven that the state is immoral, than secession is more than justifiedd
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:45:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:40:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:36:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:31:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:29:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

What does this have to do with the Constitutional legitimacy of secession or the power of the federal government? The federal government has the power to tax (established in the constitution). Your philosophical qualms with that aren't really relevant. By law, the federal government has jurisdiction without ownership, so DanT is wrong in the way he conflates the 2.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional aspect, but very much to do with the moral question of seccession

Your arguments for secession also turn out to be arguments against Democracy, governmental power, and basically the whole western political establishment. It's a futile argument to support secession on those principles before actually attacking the establishment that prevents it.

Who said that secession automatically leads to another state? To secede, one need only to deny the legitimacy of the central state and not submit to it. This can be done by large areas like the CSA or individual communities or people. There's no prerequisite to establishing another state.

If its proven that the state is immoral, than secession is more than justifiedd

I'm sure you know by now my response to the whole morally justified thing. Morality, like language, is a cultural invention with no real objective basis.

By the way, do you think the conditions prior to the southern secession justify it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:45:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:40:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:36:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:31:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:29:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:23:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:03:51 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

If government does not "own" the land, what gives them the right to force tenants to pay rent (property taxes)?

If the town you live in doesn't own your house and your land, what gives it the right to tell you what to do? It's Jurisdiction without ownership, the latter is not a condition for the legitimacy of the former...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.

It's generally held that they don't have the right to tell me what to do on my own property if I don't harm others. Of course, there are many exceptions to that nowadays.

I would argue further that we are all unwilling "property" of the state. It can kill us at will, take large shares of our incomes, imprison us indefinitely, pass onerous regulations year after year, and force us to kill people we've never met whos language we cant speak in aggressive wars, assign us numbers at birth, ect. The problem with your jurisdiction without ownership argument is that compulsorily monopolistic jurisdiction can only be achieved through the seizing of rights...the government has the ability to tax people on their property because they have seized the right to be secure on ones property away from those people.

What does this have to do with the Constitutional legitimacy of secession or the power of the federal government? The federal government has the power to tax (established in the constitution). Your philosophical qualms with that aren't really relevant. By law, the federal government has jurisdiction without ownership, so DanT is wrong in the way he conflates the 2.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional aspect, but very much to do with the moral question of seccession

Your arguments for secession also turn out to be arguments against Democracy, governmental power, and basically the whole western political establishment. It's a futile argument to support secession on those principles before actually attacking the establishment that prevents it.

Who said that secession automatically leads to another state? To secede, one need only to deny the legitimacy of the central state and not submit to it. This can be done by large areas like the CSA or individual communities or people. There's no prerequisite to establishing another state.

If its proven that the state is immoral, than secession is more than justifiedd

I'm sure you know by now my response to the whole morally justified thing. Morality, like language, is a cultural invention with no real objective basis.

Yeah, that could likely be true. I cant think of a secular justification for objective morality.

By the way, do you think the conditions prior to the southern secession justify it?

I don't know. I sympathize with secession, but no one can deny slavery was an extreme evil and had a lot to do with the war...and I find that abhorrent.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 7:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:21:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:15:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2012 6:52:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution says that Congress has the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

In other words, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction within a state, unless a federal district is created, with the state's consent; in which case the district cannot exceed 10 sq miles.

It says that the federal government can establish a district with consent of the state, but it doesn't say that the federal government has no jurisdiction, that's your invention. The selection you quoted has more to do with establishing a national capital than federal/state balance of power.

Have you ever read the constitution? Anyone who has ever read the constitution can see as plain as day that the Federal government only has authority to to deal with interstate and foreign affairs.

Yes I have actually, and I know for a fact that you're using lengthy misquoted text to mask the vacuity of your argument.

You also conveniently neglect to place the Constitution in historical context. What exactly was it designed to improve and why did the articles fail? An understanding of that is enough to refute secession.

A federation is not a unitary state, it's the middle ground between a unity state and a confederation. A confederation may have a legislature, and a judiciary, but it has no executive authority. That is what was created by the constitution; an executive authority to enforce legislation dealing with interstate and foreign affairs.

The issue that led to the adoption of the constitution, was that the states were at each others throats. The preamble said it best where it reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

None of y quotes are misquoted. I did not cut off the clauses, nor did I paraphrase. Those are full quotes, word by word.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:05:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:00:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:03:56 PM, DanT wrote:

The constitution also states

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In other words the States and Federal government cannot take private land without paying the owner what the land is worth.
Also the Federal Government must purchase land from the states (or a foreign state) if they wish to hold a geographical jurisdiction over that land.

No. The federal government must purchase the land to OWN the land. Jurisdiction is different matter that you're carelessly inserting into your analysis.

They must own it to have jurisdiction over it; otherwise it's the state's jurisdiction. By owning it they are granted jurisdiction, just like people have jurisdiction over the rules of their house, or their place of business.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:11:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:01:32 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
It is unconstitutional for a state to unilaterally secede from the United States. (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700)

Gotta love how quick people appeal to authority when it comes to proving something's constitutionality. The Supreme court is only relevant in court cases; it's decisions have no force of law outside of the judicial system.

Take for example Miranda rights; a cop can arrest someone without reading them their Miranda rights, but the judge would set them free as soon as they show up for court.

Unless it involves a court case, the supreme court has no real authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:13:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 7:59:26 PM, DanT wrote:

A federation is not a unitary state, it's the middle ground between a unity state and a confederation. A confederation may have a legislature, and a judiciary, but it has no executive authority. That is what was created by the constitution; an executive authority to enforce legislation dealing with interstate and foreign affairs.

The issue that led to the adoption of the constitution, was that the states were at each others throats. The preamble said it best where it reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

None of y quotes are misquoted. I did not cut off the clauses, nor did I paraphrase. Those are full quotes, word by word.

The Constitutions was created because the federal government lacked the authority to carry out it's duties and couldn't accomplish anything. Farmers were facing debt, bankruptcy, and foreclosure because of a post war recession and the government had no power to remedy it. The economies of the states were too separate (separate currencies, policies etc.) and lacked regulation. That is why we needed the Constitution. To empower the federal government, since state supremacy was causing economic chaos.

And by "misquoting" I mean that you are blindly ripping off articles from the Constitution and putting your own erroneous spin on it. You quote long and often irrelevant selections as if length makes it daunting to challenge you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just waiting on Ike to bust out the house-building analogy...

*nibbles Pop Tart in anticipation*
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:39:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 8:13:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2012 7:59:26 PM, DanT wrote:

A federation is not a unitary state, it's the middle ground between a unity state and a confederation. A confederation may have a legislature, and a judiciary, but it has no executive authority. That is what was created by the constitution; an executive authority to enforce legislation dealing with interstate and foreign affairs.

The issue that led to the adoption of the constitution, was that the states were at each others throats. The preamble said it best where it reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

None of y quotes are misquoted. I did not cut off the clauses, nor did I paraphrase. Those are full quotes, word by word.

The Constitutions was created because the federal government lacked the authority to carry out it's duties and couldn't accomplish anything. Farmers were facing debt, bankruptcy, and foreclosure because of a post war recession and the government had no power to remedy it. The economies of the states were too separate (separate currencies, policies etc.) and lacked regulation. That is why we needed the Constitution. To empower the federal government, since state supremacy was causing economic chaos.

The constitution was not created to address issues within specific states, but rather the issues that occurred among the several states, and between the several states and foreign powers. For example, each state minted their own coins, which varied depending on their level of inflation. States would often fight over the credibility of currency during interstate trade, and foreign trade was also affected by the domestic instability of our currency.
Another issue was that states would raise tariffs, duties, and imposts on the goods from other states, and at the same time foreign powers would also raise tariffs on us. As a result our economy suffered.

That is why the constitution says, "No State shall... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any ...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...."

and

"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."

And by "misquoting" I mean that you are blindly ripping off articles from the Constitution and putting your own erroneous spin on it. You quote long and often irrelevant selections as if length makes it daunting to challenge you.

those quotes were to show the language of the constitution; I was not trying to use them to show states had a right to secede, but rather to show the distinction between federal and state authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 8:43:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Under your understanding of the Constitution, DanT, if a state was asked to pay taxes, could it legally argue that it will not pay taxes or secede from the union? If so, how did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to remedy the very problems stemming from the Articles of Confederation vis a vis taxation by the Federal government?