In response to:

Parting Company

Jeff2422 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 12:54 AM
directly say succession is prohibited, it is clear that certain sections make it difficult to argue that the Constitution leaves this as a viable possibility. Thus, succession is not ok with the Constitution and one would have to argue the Declaration of Independence, as the Confederate States did, as the basis of succession.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 1:27 AM
One could just as easily argue the failure of the Federalists. Nobody at that time wished a government as all powerfull as we now have. At least not openly.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 1:08 AM
Additionally, the union troops did not fight against self-determination. That concept is partially an aspect of the Declaration of Independence, but really is a concept of Woodrow Wilson after WW I in dealing the fragmented aspects of Europe with a shrunken Germany and an Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia in shambles. The federal forces fought for "the union". The idea that America is better off in the long run staying together. This is why old books from the north call it the "War of the Rebellion" and southern books call it the "War between the States." Southern states saw "states" as like free agents and ignored the failure of the original Articles of Confederacy and the free agent approach.
For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds...