In response to:

What Ron Paul Gets Wrong

bachcole Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 11:12 AM
I notice that Blackwell jumped from a thoughtful discussion of the difference between secession and revolution to threats about violence. But no violence is necessary. A careful reading of the Constitution and the constitution of the states will show that there is no law forbidding secession, and many state constitutions reserve the right of secession. Legally speaking, Lincoln was wrong. The current situation is much different. The State of Texas is not committing crimes against humanity and is not thinking about secession because the mainstream wants to stop Texas from committing these crimes. Texans just want to be left alone; they just want liberty and not socialism.
Steven F Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 1:30 PM
An HONEST reading of the US Constitution will show no law against secession is necessary, or even POSSIBLE. The Constitution REQUIRES the United States to preserve the Union. Secession is a BREACH OF CONTRACT on behalf of those wishing to secede. Allowing unilateral secession is declaring the CONTRACT that is the US Constitution to be of no effect.
anti-neocon Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 2:14 PM
steven, the federal government has been violating the contract for more than a hundred years.
even if i hadn't, what is it about the definitiion of "sovereign" that you fail to understand ?

virtually the entire declaration of independence acknowledges the right of secession.
"deriving their just power from the CONSENT of the governed".
Texas Chris Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:15 PM
The letters written by the founding fathers, the designers of the constitution, to the state legislatures describing the limited powers of the proposed government and the rights retained by the states, prove you both wrong and ignorant of the founding principles of this country.

Each state is sovereign, may nullify any federal law, and may secede at any time.
Zerubbabel Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 12:33 PM
The Civil; war was NOT about "crimes against humanity." It was in Lincoln's own words: "a war to preserve the Union." "The Union" is mediated by the Federal government. "The Union" = Federal Power.

Lincoln and the newly found Republicans Usurped power that was not granted by the Constitution and it has never been relinquished.

In order to remedy your misconceptions try this: Every time you think of Lincoln envision his memorial where he sits on a throne with Fasces for armrests.
bachcole Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 7:33 PM
I did not say (or mean) that The Civil War was a crime against humanity. I said that slavery was a crime against humanity. The Civil War was most certainly the result of the push to limit slavery, and the South feared that the North would use it's majority power to end slavery. So they seceded. The Constitution does not mention secession. But most people, especially in the North, could not bare in their hearts to see their beloved nation split asunder. And Abolitionists were happy at the chance to end slavery.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 11:55 AM
Well, I think you are being overly kind to call Blackwell's discussion of the difference between secession and revolution "thoughtful." The rest of your posting is spot-on.

Congressman Ron Paul has just delivered his valedictory address in the House of Representatives. And he has told TV interviewers that the American Revolution was a wonderful example of secession. He's a much better OB/GYN, I'm sure, than he is a student of America's history. He could be cited for political malpractice.

If the Founding Fathers and the Patriots who fought and won the Revolution were seceding, why is it that none of them ever called it secession? They certainly had the word back then. They invoked the well-known right of revolution. They had read their John Locke and their Montesquieu,...