LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Democrats are becoming the party of secession ... lemmings - retrogrades- reprobates --- luddites
Source:
nypost.com
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2017/01/31/democr ... osting-trump-at-the-same-time/
Published: Feb 1, 2017
Author: Michael Goodwin
Post Date: 2017-02-01 17:37:41 by BorisY
Keywords: lemmings retrogrades reprobate, lemmings retrogrades reprobate, lemmings retrogrades reprobate
Views: 4120
Comments: 20
Democrats are becoming the party of secession By Michael Goodwin January 31, 2017 Let’s agree that President Trump’s travel ban on visitors from seven nations was a sensible idea hobbled by flaws, especially regarding green card holders and dual citizens. Let’s also agree we haven’t seen a rollout this clumsy since the debut of ObamaCare, which was far more serious because it penalized millions of Americans while Trump’s order inconvenienced hundreds of foreign nationals. Still, we can assume, based on past performance, that Trump will learn from the mistakes. His fierce determination to be a successful president cannot co-exist with rookie blunders. But what about the other players in the drama? Can we say the media will now correct its excess of bile and cover Trump as a legitimate president and not as an invasive species? No, no, no. On the contrary, we must say that Trump aide Steve Bannon was on target when he called the Washington media “the opposition party.” Don’t take his word for it. Stick a toe into the toxic sludge that passes for straight-news coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times and others. Look for the use of tell words like “Muslim ban” to describe an executive order that is no such thing. Look for hero worship of protesters, immigrants, refugees, lawyers rushing to the barricades and congressional critics. Look, too, at the Twitter feeds of editors and reporters from those papers and the major networks. You’ll see their embrace of everything anti-Trump, further evidence they are part of a movement to obstruct the president, not cover him. Consider, too, their rediscovered love for Republican Sen. John McCain, a man they ignored during the eight-year reign of their savior, Barack Obama. McCain is again the good maverick because he is bucking the media’s permanent enemy, Republicans. Yet if the media is the opposition party, what is the Democratic Party? It’s supposed to be the loyal opposition, using checks and balances to restrain the president and the excess of one-party rule. Unfortunately, the Dems are following a dangerously different path. Starting with a wide boycott of the inauguration and including their boycott of committee votes on Trump’s cabinet and their pledge to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee, Democrats resemble a party fomenting a secession movement. Some call it Trump Derangement Syndrome, but that’s too kind. It’s not a temporarily insane reaction, it’s a calculated plan to wreck the presidency, whatever the cost to the country. Things never seen in the modern era are now rapidly becoming common. Impeachment talk already is rumbling in the party’s hothouses, and Trump was met with a lawsuit the minute he took the oath. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the top Dems in Congress, led a raucous demonstration Monday night, as if they are community organizers. And Obama couldn’t bear the irrelevance after eight days out of office and felt compelled to encourage disruptions. This is Third World behavior and it’s now the M.O. of one of America’s two political parties. Then there’s California, the epicenter of Dem strength. Radicals there, spurred on by pro-Mexico immigrants, are ginning up an effort to split from the United States and they might get a proposal on the ballot. I say we take their wine and let them go. SEE ALSO Schumer vows to fight Trump's immigration order If California secedes and its 55 electoral votes come off the board, Dems will never win another American election. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton could become president of the breakaway state and the rest of us would be free of the Clinton stain. Secession is one way the swamp could drain itself. Sally Yates’ way is another. The acting attorney general was rightfully sacked the instant after she climbed a soapbox and refused to defend Trump’s executive order in court. It would have been a more admirable gesture if she had the decency to resign. Instead, she thought she could defy the president and keep the job. Her choice was not a minor act of insubordination. It was a public challenge to the constitutional authority of the president, a power left to Congress and the judiciary. As a result, she was shunned and hid in disgrace. Oh, wait, that’s what would happen in a better world. In this one, Democrats hailed her as a “patriot” amid predictions a political star is born. My prediction is that Dems are digging their own grave and their revolt against his legitimacy will, in the short term at least, boost Trump’s popularity. Most Americans will conclude he is honestly trying to fulfill the mandate he won and that the fevered rush to destroy him is neither principled nor patriotic. There is a catch: Our cultural impatience won’t give Trump endless time or big room for error. He must pick his fights with discretion and wage them with smart, methodical moves that bring clear results. Equally key, he can’t become a prisoner of Washington. While social media is important, he must get out of town regularly to meet people where they live and remind them that he’s fighting their fights. He should continue to court core Democrats, especially members of manufacturing unions and open-minded black and Latino voters. If he does all that, and if he’s lucky, America will be great again. That’s what matters. part I Poster Comment: in under ground water Permanently too
a
very
short
time
liberals
will
be
back
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie gangGreen, fredbot, hondope, zulu, mau mau, hutus, lice, druids, morloks, 666ers (#0)
This is Third World behavior and it’s now the M.O. of one of America’s two political parties. mean we we distracted from thanks the over discrimination affirmative crazy via pc Nazi major catholic also gender preceeding the the said they over the over maga love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
If they keep hemorrhaging sales, one may have to search for the failing papers themselves.
It would be interesting to see how many millions would flee the Democratic Republic of Kookifornia. They could stay and officially become Kooks, or leave and remain Americans. If they officially become Kooks, just think of all the Federal bennies they would lose.
Once again, hondope shows all just what sore losers him and his dem overlords really are. Enjoy the new "conservative" judge nominated to the supreme court, and kiss your dem plans for gun control.
Those are excellent, hondolt! Thanks.
1861-1865 demonstrated that, no, California can't secede. They can try to secede. They can pass a law that says they're independent, but they'll still be arrested for not paying their taxes, and federal law will still be enforced. And if they attempt to resist the federal authorities, they will be met with force.
Hondo is one of our best posters on LF!
1861-1865 demonstrated that the North was mightier than the South. The prolonged failure to prosecute Jefferson Davis, or any of the other charged officials, underscored the rightful fear of losing the argument in court. Instead the concocted case of Texas v. White was brought and the matter was wordsmithed by Chief Justice Chase (he whose name is enshrined in the name Chase Bank). This sophistry loses a bit of oomph when one realizes that when the indestructible union that existed under the AoC was abolished by the Constitution, and George Washington was immaculated, the previous indestructible union of thirteen states became a union of eleven states, shedding two states from the indestructible union, who only significantly later joined the new union. The dissenting opinion of Justice Greer rather laid bare in inanity of the entire case and the majority opinion. Justices Swayne and Miller also dissented. The Justices who formed the majority were Salmon P. Chase, Samuel Nelson, Nathan A. Clifford, David Davis, and Stepen J. Field. Lincoln appointed Chase, Swayne, Miller, Davis, and Field. Field was appointed as a tenth justice to stack the court. Nelson was appointed by Tyler, Clifford by Buchanan. I regret that I am compelled to dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court on all the points raised and decided in this case. The first question in order is the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this bill in behalf of the State of Texas. The original jurisdiction of this court can be invoked only by one of the United States. The Territories have no such right conferred on them by the Constitution, nor have the Indian tribes who are under the protection of the military authorities of the government. Is Texas one of these United States? Or was she such at the time this bill was filed, or since? This is to be decided as a political fact, not as a legal fiction. This court is bound to know and notice the public history of the nation. If I regard the truth of history for the last eight years, I cannot discover the State of Texas as one of these United States. I do not think it necessary to notice any of the very astute arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel in this case, to find the definition of a State, when we have the subject treated in a clear and common sense manner by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Hepburn & Dundass v. Ellxey. 21 As the case is short, I hope to be excused for a full report of it, as stated and decided by the court. He says: 'The question is, whether the plaintiffs, as residents of the District of Columbia, can maintain an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Virginia. This depends on the act of Congress describing the jurisdiction of that court. The act gives jurisdiction to the Circuit Courts in cases between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State. To support the jurisdiction in this case, it must appear that Columbia is a State. On the part of the plaintiff, it has been urged that Columbia is a distinct political society, and is, therefore, a 'State' according to the [74 U.S. 700, 738] definition of writers on general law. This is true; but as the act of Congress obviously uses the word 'State' in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a State in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American Confederacy only are the States contemplated in the Constitution. The House of Representatives is to be composed of members chosen by the people of the several States, and each State shall have at least one representative. 'The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State.' Each State shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives. These clauses show that the word 'State' is used in the Constitution as designating a member of the Union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.' Now we have here a clear and well-defined test by which we may arrive at a conclusion with regard to the questions of fact now to be decided. Is Texas a State, now represented by members chosen by the people of that State and received on the floor of Congress? Has she two senators to represent her as a State in the Senate of the United States? Has her voice been heard in the late election of President? Is she not now held and governed as a conquered province by military force? The act of Congress of March 2d, 1867, declares Texas to be a 'rebel State,' and provides for its government until a legal and republican State government could be legally established. It constituted Louisiana and Texas the fifth military district, and made it subject, not to the civil authority, but to the 'military authorities of the United States.' It is true that no organized rebellion now exists there, and the courts of the United States now exercise jurisdiction over the people of that province. But this is no test of the State's being in the Union; Dacotah is no State, and yet the courts of the United States administer justice there as they do in Texas. The Indian tribes, who are governed by military force, cannot claim to be States of the Union. Wherein does the condition of Texas differ from theirs?- [74 U.S. 700, 739] Now, by assuming or admitting as a fact the present status of Texas as a State not in the Union politically, I beg leave to protest against any charge of inconsistency as to judicial opinions heretofore expressed as a member of this court, or silently assented to. I do not consider myself bound to express any opinion judicially as to the constitutional right of Texas to exercise the rights and privileges of a State of this Union, or the power of Congress to govern her as a conquered province, to subject her to military domination, and keep her in pupilage. I can only submit to the fact as decided by the political position of the government; and I am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union, when Congress have decided that she is not. It is a question of fact, I repeat, and of fact only. Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the court. But conceding now the fact to be as judicially assumed by my brethren, the next question is, whether she has a right to repudiate her contracts? Before proceeding to answer this question, we must notice a fact in this case that was forgotten in the argument. I mean that the United States are no party to this suit, and refusing to pay the bonds because the money paid would be used to advance the interests of the rebellion. It is a matter of utter insignificance to the government of the United States to whom she makes the payment of these bonds. They are payable to the bearer. The government is not bound to inquire into the bona fides of the holder, nor whether the State of Taxes has parted with the bonds wisely or foolishly. And although by the Reconstruction Acts she is required to repudiate all debts contracted for the purposes of the rebellion, this does not annul all acts of the State government during the rebellion, or contracts for other purposes, nor authorize the State to repudiate them. Now, whether we assume the State of Texas to be judicially in the Union (though actually out of it) or not, it will not alter the case. The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract [74 U.S. 700, 740] with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion. Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void. We have had some very astute logic to prove that judicially she was not a State at all, although governed by her own legislature and executive as 'a distinct political body.' The ordinance of secession was adopted by the convention on the 18th of February, 1861; submitted to a vote of the people, and ratified by an overwhelming majority. I admit that this was a very ill-advised measure. Still it was the sovereign act of a sovereign State, and the verdict on the trial of this question, 'by battle,'22 as to her right to secede, has been against her. But that verdict did not settle any question not involved in the case. It did not settle the question of her right to plead insanity and set aside all her contracts, made during the pending of the trial, with her own citizens, for food, clothing, or medicines. The same 'organized political body,' exercising the sovereign power of the State, which required the indorsement of these bonds by the governor, also passed the laws authorizing the disposal of them without such indorsement. She cannot, like the chameleon, assume the color of the object to which she adheres, and ask this court to involve itself in the contradictory positions, that she is a State in the Union and was never out of it, and yet not a State at all for four years, during which she acted and claims to be 'an organized political body,' exercising all the powers and functions of an independent sovereign State. Whether a State de facto or de jure, she is estopped from denying her identity in disputes with her own citizens. If they have not fulfilled their [74 U.S. 700, 741] contract, she can have her legal remedy for the breach of it in her own courts. But the case of Hardenberg differs from that of the other defendants. He purchased the bonds in open market, bona fide, and for a full consideration. Now, it is to be observed that these bonds are payable to bearer, and that this court is appealed to as a court of equity. The argument to justify a decree in favor of the commonwealth of Texas as against Hardenberg, is simply this: these bonds, though payable to bearer, are redeemable fourteen years from date. The government has exercised her privilege of paying the interest for a term without redeeming the principal, which gives an additional value to the bonds. Ergo, the bonds are dishonored. Ergo, the former owner has a right to resume the possession of them, and reclaim them from a bon a fide owner by a decree of a court of equity. This is the legal argument, when put in the form of a logical sorites, by which Texas invokes our aid to assist her in the perpetration of this great wrong. A court of chancery is said to be a court of conscience; and however astute may be the argument introduced to defend this decree, I can only say that neither my reason nor my conscience can give assent to it.
Truth: entry into the Union is a one-way door. American states cannot leave. If they try, make a serious effort at it, their proclamations will be ignored and the Feds will remain in place, enforcing everything. That will then leave the "seceding sovereigntists" with two choices: (A) continue to pay their taxes, obey federal law, and in fact BE part of the United States while pretending they're not, or (B) stop paying their taxes, in which case they will be arrested, stop obeying federal law, and be arrested, or actively impede the enforcement of federal law, in which case they will be beaten down by force and arrested. That's reality. One can paper that over with legal principles if one wishes, but in the end might makes right, or at any rate might determines the conditions on the ground, and THIS ground, the USA, will remain the USA regardless of what the locals in any particular part of it may pretend.
A Can Maga Love Ps California can Puerto haiti If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
That will then leave the "seceding sovereigntists" with two choices: (A) continue to pay their taxes, obey federal law, and in fact BE part of the United States while pretending they're not, or (B) stop paying their taxes, in which case they will be arrested, stop obeying federal law, and be arrested, or actively impede the enforcement of federal law, in which case they will be beaten down by force and arrested. That's reality. One can paper that over with legal principles if one wishes, but in the end might makes right, or at any rate might determines the conditions on the ground, and THIS ground, the USA, will remain the USA regardless of what the locals in any particular part of it may pretend. That was true in the 1860's. It's the 21st century. Let any state have the military within the state side with them and seize control of nuclear weapons and whole equation changes. The potential for actual secession is greater today than it was in the 19th century, if the people of a state, or group of states, organize to do it. It also depends on the other states resisting the departure. Many states may support assisting departure rather than resisting it, letting ~50 million ultra liberal fruits and nuts depart. The notion that "entry into the Union is a one-way door. American states cannot leave," does not have an historical legal basis. Several of the ratifying documents say very much the opposite, and did so at the time that the states North Carolina and Rhode Island, part of the explicitly declared perpetual union, were being left out of the newly forming constitutional union, which omitted the phrasing about being a perpetual union. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution. [snip] Under Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. The constitutional authority of the Federal government to send troops into a State is limited to cases of invasion. Only upon application of the State for Federal assistance does the Federal government obtain constitutional authority to send armed forces into a State.
Law is not the ultimate arbiter of human affairs. Firepower is. If any actors seized a nuclear weapons facility, US Special Forces would be swarming the place within the hour. There would be no standoff. There would be a slaughter. If some group got possession of a base with nuclear missiles, or grabbed a submarine with them, it would take them more than a few hours to be able to make an override to the national command systems. You can't arm nuclear warheads and launch them without various codes. Just having the weapon doesn't give you the ability to use it. With time, you could take it apart and use the nuclear material. Nobody will be given any time. If a sub is seized in a harbor by some state actors, special forces will shoot their way in. If a sub is seized at sea, we will sink it. If a base is seized, we will swarm it. There will be no internal nuclear blackmail of the United States by some rogue element seizing some nukes. We won't respond with negotiation, we will respond with seizure, torture and slaughter - RAPIDLY - and very RAPIDLY secure the situation, using highly illegal "whatever it takes" methods. And in the aftermath, we will not hold the officials who do what they need to do to maintain ultimate command and control over nuclear weapons accountable to any law, because the information will be suppressed. Hillary and Bill Clinton were never held accountable to the law, and probably never will be. Barack Obama was probably born foreign in Kenya and therefore arguably not eligible for the Presidency at all. When even partisan political power is at stake the laws are not supreme. When existential matters are at stake - and the seizure of nuclear weapons by radical groups is an existential matter - then the answer will be the immediate application of pure power for immediate effect with no regard whatever for any limit of law. And nobody will ever be held accountable to the law for what they do to stop it. Law has no power on its own. All power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun, or of course from God, but God is not predictable.
You have a fascinating view of secession. You seem to think that the law requires the Union to have let the Confederacy go in the 1860s, and that the war to retain the Union was illegal. Some people might allow that the war WAS illegal. I might. But very few people really CARE that it was illegal or not. Maintaining the territorial integrity of our country is simply more important than the "rule of law" that would allow the country to fall apart. As Lincoln put it: "Shall just one law be respected, and the government go to pieces?" Most people, myself included, do not respect the concept of law itself, or the "rule of law", enough to stand by and allow our country to be destroyed. National integrity is of higher importance than the law. If the law would require us to simply let our nation be destroyed, then to hell with the law, break it, win, and - if we have to soothe the legalists - pass a law after the fact that makes what we did legal. That's good enough for the lion's share of humanity. You think that today secession would be easier. For example, you think that a state has to ask federal forces to come within a state. But actually, there are thick federal forces already within every state. And they will enforce federal law, and have plenary federal power to do so. So, if some local yokels attack the federal authorities, the federal government will simply send reinforcements. It will not ask the state permission to do so. If the state tells the FBI to leave, the FBI will ignore the state and stay. Ditto for the IRS. The Federal government will not behave like James Buchanan, and quietly dither on the sidelines while a rebellion ramps up over months and months. They will move in as at Waco, and they'll do it on their own authority. The state has no ability to stop them. All it can do is whine about it and maybe sue. And while the lawsuit grinds through the federal courts (assuming it is not summarily dismissed) federal power will be crushing out the rebellion. It would be much harder to get a head of steam on for a secession in 2017. The Feds would be all over it from the beginning, and leaders would be swept up for "child porn" charges on their computers, or drug possession, or any of the other serious felonies that are easy to stage. And the serious hard core leaders will simply be murdered at night when they try to change their flat tires. And that will be that. Dreaming of secession is an unhealthy business. The federal authorities of this country will never, ever let one get started. Trying to set one up is a good way to die or rot in prison for some morals offense - even if you did not really commit it. So it becomes purely a mental exercise about what the law would be IF the world were actually governed by law. Mental exercises are fun, to a point. But they are not realistic. Nor do I see any value of a rule of law that does not preserve the organic life of the country that makes those laws. It has been said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", and that is just so. If the law, including the Constitution, back us into a corner such that we cannot keep the country together by following it, we save the country by breaking the law and then change the law after the fact. The preservation of the nation is ultimately more important than respect for the law.
Justice Grier's argument in the case you cited is interesting. On the facts in the text, a guy bought Texas Confederate bonds, and then sued to get his principal back. The majority said no. A dissenting minority judge, invoking equity, not law, said that he should. The judge's view did not prevail, and the guy didn't get his money back.
California be new haiti yemen somali too cultural love ps look watts they've Tijuana If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The captain keeps to codes locked in a safe. After receiving and verifying the launch authorization code, he has authority to launch. It takes more than one person to physically enable a launch. The authorization must be able to be transmitted to deeply submerged submarines.
Some people might allow that the war WAS illegal. I might. But very few people really CARE that it was illegal or not. Maintaining the territorial integrity of our country is simply more important than the "rule of law" that would allow the country to fall apart. Yes, you would find an unlawful, unconstitutional, usurping Union action to be permitted if you find that more important than the rule of law. You have a fascinating way of viewing the law so that you are always right when you agree with the law, and when you disagree with the law, the law is always wrong and it is your moral imperative to hold yourself above the law and to ignore it. I do not think it. The U.S. Constitution says it in no uncertain terms, and I quoted them to you. While on a Federal base, they are not considered within the State. You may notice that State taxes are not collected at a base exchange. You may recall that George W. Bush delayed sending troops after Katrina until the governor sent the required request. What you mean is that they on Federal enclaves. They cannot come out, guns ablazing, without violating the constitution. The same may have been said about allowing sanctuary cities or passing laws opening defying federal drug laws, or openly defying immigration law. The Trump administration may decide to crush that lawless crap. The liberals, socialists, and communist rabble choose to talk law out of one side of their mouth and talk of some moral imperative that permits them to ignore the law when it pleases them. In founding the constitutional union, in a rather dubious process, two states were left on the outside looking in. At the very founding, the holy grail of keeping the union intact at any cost, was bypassed. Evidently, this notion did not exist at the framing and only later descended as a mystical paraclete. Note the first volume of the Congressional Register refers to: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia. Being the Eleven States that have Ratified the Constitution of the Government of the United States. The two missing states are Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Union did not perish due to suicide. North Carolina rejoined about six months later, and Rhode Island rejoined about a year later.
On the facts of the case, many, many times the value of the bonds was spent litigating than the bonds were worth. Its singular achievement was to give Chase the opportunity to state that secession was unlawful, without actually confronting the issue in a contested case such as a prosecution of Jefferson Davis. They were scared to death to go up against the dream team of lawyers that had assembled. During the war, Stanton and later Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and jailed political prisoners, with the official records explicitly accounting for them as political prisoners. The best lawyers were helpless to act for their clients for several years. They were ready when the war was over. Heading up the team was famed New York attorney Charles O'Conor Texas v. White was another civil war concocted case where Texas was the Federally appointed government of Texas, and attorney George Paschal was jailed during the war for union sympathies, and after the war set up shop as a Washington, D.C. lawyer. Texas v. White is an entertaining legal case. President Andrew Johnson, on June 17, 1865 appointed Andrew J. Hamilton as Provisional Governor of the State of Texas. Mr. Hamilton appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of the state, to represent the state as counsel. Mr. E.M. Pease, a subsequent governor appointed by General Sheridan, renewed the appointment of George W. Paschal as counsel. The Federal appointee of the Military Government of Texas (provisional Governor Andrew J. Hamilton) appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of said Military Government of Texas, to represent said Military Government. And thus it came to pass that the attorney purportedly representing the State of Texas argued that said State had never left the Union. When the case was over, all the bonds in question were turned over to the Texas representative. That would be George W. Paschal. Mr. Paschal then claimed the full value of the bonds, $47,325 plus another $17,577 for his legal fees. Governor E.J. Davis refused Paschal's claim and then dismissed him as financial agent for the state. Mr. Paschal sued and won. He not only got to keep the bonds, but also the added 17 thousand. And so it came to pass that Texas would have saved 17 thousand bucks plus the cost of litigation to just pay White & Chiles. (And that only considers one attorney in one phase of the litigation.) In "winning" this lawsuit, it is a bit difficult to see how the State of Texas benefitted. But it would appear that neither the State of Texas, nor the people of the State of Texas, were the intended beneficiaries. Moreover, it did allow the Federal Military Governor the opportunity to go to Federal Court and obtain a Federal decision saying Texas never ceased to be a state. And so it came to pass that when the State of Texas sued White & Chiles, the beneficiary was the Federal Government in Washington. George W. Paschal didn't do too bad either. Mr. Grier, in dissent, capably analyzed the legal insanity perpetrated by the majority. The government is not bound to inquire into the bona fides of the holder, nor whether the State of Texas has parted with the bonds wisely or foolishly. And although by the Reconstruction Acts she is required to repudiate all debts contracted for the purposes of the rebellion, this does not annul all acts of the State government during the rebellion, or contracts for other purposes, nor authorize the State to repudiate them. Now, whether we assume the State of Texas to be judicially in the Union (though actually out of it) or not, it will not alter the case. The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion. Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.
Texas Pussy Hat Judge Governor of Texas has cut funding for the whole illegal alien sanctuary County, Travis. http://rightwingnews.com/liberals/county-judge-who-wore-puy-hat-to-court-just-got-schooled-video/
while
are
attacked
from
with
out
for
the
past
20
years
are
being
attacked
with-
in
to
... liberals
country
has
been
... dead
ended
action
race
gay
rights
sharia
jihad
govt
brainwashing
indoctrination
fascist
social
engineering
issues
now
facing
the
ussc
schools
using
public
play
grounds
bathrooms
in
public
schools
the
911
attack
grid
lock
senate
in
the
news
head
republican
were
in
an
intense
national
crisis
classroom
sizes
in
public
schools
same
thing
is
happening
now
immigration
masa
boris
#2. To: BorisY, BortardYes, Fred Mertz (#1)
#3. To: BorisY (#0)
Don’t take his word for it. Stick a toe into the toxic sludge that passes for straight-news coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times and others. Look for the use of tell words like “Muslim ban” to describe an executive order that is no such thing. Look for hero worship of protesters, immigrants, refugees, lawyers rushing to the barricades and congressional critics.
#4. To: BorisY (#0)
If California secedes and its 55 electoral votes come off the board, Dems will never win another American election.
#5. To: hondo68, other democrat lowlifes (#2)
#6. To: hondo68 (#2)
#7. To: nolu chan (#4)
Christ, the Incarnate God, Crucified and Resurrected into Glory. God takes into himself our fallen human nature and restores and glorifies it, suffering even death so that we might be delivered from it.
#8. To: Fred Mertz, hondo68 (#6)
Those are excellent ..
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
1861-1865 demonstrated that, no, California can't secede.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Mr. Justice GRIER, dissenting.
#10. To: nolu chan (#9)
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
(Edited)
two
thirds
majority
do
anything
boris
be
the
new
rico
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Truth: entry into the Union is a one-way door. American states cannot leave. If they try, make a serious effort at it, their proclamations will be ignored and the Feds will remain in place, enforcing everything.
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.
Section 4.
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
(Edited)
The notion that "entry into the Union is a one-way door. American states cannot leave," does not have an historical legal basis.
#14. To: nolu chan (#12)
#15. To: nolu chan (#9)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
(Edited)
can
the
Puerto
rico
rot
USA
boris
at
bezerkly
passed
up
gaza
too
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
If some group got possession of a base with nuclear missiles, or grabbed a submarine with them, it would take them more than a few hours to be able to make an override to the national command systems. You can't arm nuclear warheads and launch them without various codes. Just having the weapon doesn't give you the ability to use it.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
You have a fascinating view of secession. You seem to think that the law requires the Union to have let the Confederacy go in the 1860s, and that the war to retain the Union was illegal.
You think that today secession would be easier. For example, you think that a state has to ask federal forces to come within a state.
But actually, there are thick federal forces already within every state.
Dreaming of secession is an unhealthy business. The federal authorities of this country will never, ever let one get started. Trying to set one up is a good way to die or rot in prison for some morals offense - even if you did not really commit it.
It has been said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", and that is just so. If the law, including the Constitution, back us into a corner such that we cannot keep the country together by following it, we save the country by breaking the law and then change the law after the fact. The preservation of the nation is ultimately more important than respect for the law.
The Congressional Register; or, HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES OF THE FIRST House of Representatives OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA; NAMELY,
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
On the facts in the text, a guy bought Texas Confederate bonds, and then sued to get his principal back.
It is a matter of utter insignificance to the government of the United States to whom she makes the payment of these bonds. They are payable to the bearer.
#20. To: BorisY, Fred Mertz, Austin Texas (#16)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]