Was the Confederacy constitutional?

many times over the last year, i've posted numerous cases where the supremes were just absolutely wrong about the constitution. it's astounding that so many people sit back in sheeple mode saying to themselves that the supreme court is the final arbitor of whats constitutional and whats not. fuck that. they are not.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
many times over the last year, i've posted numerous cases where the supremes were just absolutely wrong about the constitution. it's astounding that so many people sit back in sheeple mode saying to themselves that the supreme court is the final arbitor of whats constitutional and whats not. fuck that. they are not.
Click to expand...

So what do you propose to do?
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
So what do you propose to do?
Click to expand...

if the supremes use their black robes of tyranny to do away with something in the constitution, then give your reps in federal or state government one chance to obliterate that court ruling with an even clearer and text specific amendment. If they fail, then ignore the court ruling and exercise your right anyway and if jack booted thugs attempt to enforce the illegal and unconstitutional law, kill them.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if the supremes use their black robes of tyranny to do away with something in the constitution, then give your reps in federal or state government one chance to obliterate that court ruling with an even clearer and text specific amendment. If they fail, then ignore the court ruling and exercise your right anyway and if jack booted thugs attempt to enforce the illegal and unconstitutional law, kill them.
Click to expand...

Let me know how that works for you.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Let me know how that works for you.
Click to expand...

I have no misconceptions at all that i'll survive any such encounter, nor do I have any preconceived notions that I'll be remembered as some sort of hero of freedom. The lamestream media will print numerous stories about how some insane right wing lunatic tea bagger shot and killed one or more 'law enforcement' officers, that last final bastion of the protectors of american freedom and security......

128780587140361923.jpg


unlike most of the cowards and sheeple in this country, i'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I have no misconceptions at all that i'll survive any such encounter, nor do I have any preconceived notions that I'll be remembered as some sort of hero of freedom. The lamestream media will print numerous stories about how some insane right wing lunatic tea bagger shot and killed one or more 'law enforcement' officers, that last final bastion of the protectors of american freedom and security......

128780587140361923.jpg


unlike most of the cowards and sheeple in this country, i'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Click to expand...

And what have you actually done? Other than bluster a lot of macho crap behind an interweb alias, that is?
 
Good Luck said:
@ Dixie:
Diversionary tactics will not work.

With regard to how Native Americans were treated, you don't have to tell me a damned thing. Fucking pale faces screwed us from the word go.

But as has been pointed out, laws protecting human rights are perfectly consistent when the tactic used is to simply define certain groups as not human. That is what happened with blacks and NAs in the past. That is what is happening with unborn children today. Define them as not human, then any human rights in the Constitution do not apply.

And not once did I imply in any manner that SCOTUS is not needed. Planting a strawman argument does your position no good either. SCOTUS is obviously needed, because with them the people would have no recourse when congress passes a law that violates the Constitution.

That history is rife with examples of misinterpretations, bad decisions based on social views instead of reality cannot be denied. But the fact that mistakes have been made, some of them still ongoing, is NOT justification for claiming that an action by the government is not unconstitutional until declared so by the courts. If something is unconstitutional, it is so because of what the CONSTITUTION says, and NOT because of what the courts say.

And yes, sometimes the courts are needed to determine which right has precedence. Yet, like most, you misunderstand the yelling fire in a crowded theater example. What he court determined in that case was that a person cannot hide behind constitutional protections in order to defend themselves from harm they have caused in exercising their rights. IOW, it is still constitutional to yell fire in a crowded theater, but do not expect your right to protect you from consequences for the harm such actions cause.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything I said was "diversionary" in any way, I have remained on-topic. You can argue otherwise, and from a philosophical perspective, you may have a valid point, but I am not arguing philosophically. What society considers to be "Constitutional" is what the SCOTUS rules Constitutional. In Roe v. Wade, the court decided the constitutionality regarding abortions, a person's right to have one, the government's right to restrict them, and the right to privacy. Before that landmark case, no one knew if it was constitutional to allow abortions or unconstitutional to disallow them. There was a conflicting view over what the Constitution says. There is still a conflicting view, but the court settled the issue of what is and isn't constitutional, or at least, what they interpreted is constitutional. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, the SCOTUS ruled it is a constitutional right for a woman to be able to obtain an abortion, and it is unconstitutional to prohibit abortion completely. Therefore, we can't argue that abortion is unconstitutional... we can argue that we think it is, we can argue that the court "got it wrong" in Roe, and we can lobby for the court to hear a case which might overturn their previous decision, and if that happens, maybe abortion on demand becomes unconstitutional... but in any event, aside from philosophy, the court decides what IS or ISN'T constitutional, and we have to live with it.
 
Dixie said:
I don't think anything I said was "diversionary" in any way, I have remained on-topic. You can argue otherwise, and from a philosophical perspective, you may have a valid point, but I am not arguing philosophically. What society considers to be "Constitutional" is what the SCOTUS rules Constitutional. In Roe v. Wade, the court decided the constitutionality regarding abortions, a person's right to have one, the government's right to restrict them, and the right to privacy. Before that landmark case, no one knew if it was constitutional to allow abortions or unconstitutional to disallow them. There was a conflicting view over what the Constitution says. There is still a conflicting view, but the court settled the issue of what is and isn't constitutional, or at least, what they interpreted is constitutional. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, the SCOTUS ruled it is a constitutional right for a woman to be able to obtain an abortion, and it is unconstitutional to prohibit abortion completely. Therefore, we can't argue that abortion is unconstitutional... we can argue that we think it is, we can argue that the court "got it wrong" in Roe, and we can lobby for the court to hear a case which might overturn their previous decision, and if that happens, maybe abortion on demand becomes unconstitutional... but in any event, aside from philosophy, the court decides what IS or ISN'T constitutional, and we have to live with it.
Click to expand...
"On topic"? Go look at the topic, then tell me you've stayed on it.

Was secession constitutional? No it was not. That is because the states committed themselves to a perpetual union in the AoC, a commitment which was affirmed by Article VI of the Constitution. You argued that perpetual does not mean permanent which was proven dead assed wrong. Then you started claiming that it was only unconstitutional after SCOTUS ruled on its constitutionality after the war had ended. Again, wrong because constitutionality depends on what the Constitution says. Courts rule according to the cases brought before them, which sets precedence. But it is the word of the Constitution which the courts compare the laws and make their determination.

So now you start pulling in how NAs were screwed over because the definition of human did not include us, so human rights did not apply to us. What the fuck does that have to do with secession?

Bottom line: The Constitution is what defines what laws are constitutional. Period. I do not care if our history is full of examples where the courts fucked up. History is also full of examples where the government took away the rights of the people and subjugated them to complete tyranny. Because that is history, do we say "oh, well" when it happens here?

I do not need some twinky in a black robe to tell me when my rights are being violated. Some do. Some like government telling them which way is up, and what color the sky is supposed to be. And then there are some who don;t like it, but don't care enough to bother with it ass long ass it doesn't affect them too much. For me, I do not like it, and I will not sit around saying "that's the way it is" either. A law tells me I have to ask the state for permission to purchase a firearm, I know my rights are being violated because the implied power to deny me that right is itself an infringement. Yes, I am aware that such laws exist, and that previous courts have erroneously upheld those laws. It does NOT make those laws constitutional no matter WHAT the damned courts say, because that is NOT what the Constitution says.

If a law is passed (which it has been) saying the federal government has the right to hold me without trial by simply labeling me a terrorist without due process, I know that law is unconstitutional. Period. Some black robes tell me it IS constitutional, that only tells me those black robes are part of the tyranny. It does NOT make these bull shit totalitarian laws constitutional. You want to fold your tent and say "Yes sir. Thank you sir. May I have another, sir?" while wiping their jism off your chin, hoping that some later court won't do the same to your progeny, have at it. But I'll continue to call a spade a spade. What the Constitution says is what determines those actions which are or are not constitutional. Trying to claim that the courts, and not the Constitution, are what determine constitutionality is simply inviting the tyrants in for dinner.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if the supremes use their black robes of tyranny to do away with something in the constitution, then give your reps in federal or state government one chance to obliterate that court ruling with an even clearer and text specific amendment. If they fail, then ignore the court ruling and exercise your right anyway and if jack booted thugs attempt to enforce the illegal and unconstitutional law, kill them.
Click to expand...
Slow down there, bucko. A smart man picks his battles and then wages them carefully, using the enemy's strength against them rather than trying to bucck it head on. Violent reaction only get you dead, and the political philosophy you believe in another black eye. Taking the smoking gun way out is doing this society, and your Consitutionalist bretheren more of a disservice than mere capitulation because it gives the opposition more proaganda against us.

It takes a full blown, all out revolution for violence to work against a tyrannical government - and we are not nearly to the point where such an action is necessary enough to gain the following it needs. At this point, I would not support any such action, nor would the vast majority of those who agree with me on political principles.

Civil disobedience - which is what your are generally describing - works only when it is peaceful. Didn't I see you quote Ghandi on another thread? The quote used is not the only piece of wisdom to come from that great man. Pick a law with the least popular support and break it, then let them put you on trial, and make as loud a noise as possible from there. Shed light on the wrongs. When enough people do that, then is when changes are made. Ghandi did it in India. It was not the violent reactions that made the British empire back away. It was the peaceful civil disobedience which led to British over reacting, that in turn showed the people of Britain the wrongs of their government.

Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers did it here in the 60s. and again, it was not the riots and violence that led to change. Riots and violence only got the black population negatively labeled, giving the racists an excuse to say "see, told you these n**** bastards are no damn good." But the peaceful sit ins, civil disobedience protests, willingness to be arrested and put on trial - THAT is what got the public's attentions AND sympathies, AND, eventually, a loud enough call for justice that the politicians had no recourse but to make the desired changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top