Do you subscribe to the Compact theory?

[Anarchist420]

I think the reason States should be able to secede is because it is a natural right and because the first 13 only joined the Constitution because of propaganda and force. The fact that the States didn't enter voluntarily is what refutes the compact theory in my opinion. The States were used by the elite to create the union, but the former didn't actually create it because the Constitutional convention met in secret and disregarded Congress of the Confederation's instructions.

About 90% of white men didn't want the Constitution ratified in 1788 and I would guess that an even higher percentage of black men didn't want the Constitution.

I personally see the Constitution as setting up a Constitutional near-monarchy (the executive is independent of the legislature and the latter is unaccountable to the former) which means Hamilton got at least 90% of what he wanted.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The only natural rights are to the laws of physics.

 

[waggy]

ok.

 

[nageov3t]

no.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

It's pretty funny to come in here and see the idiotic responses to his hypothesis. Congratulations P&N, you just made the guy you ridicule relentlessly look smarter than the rest of you.

 

[halik]

It's pretty funny to come in here and see the idiotic responses to his hypothesis. Congratulations P&N, you just made the guy you ridicule relentlessly look smarter than the rest of you.

Oh you must be new here, as you seem to confuse wikipedia diarrhea with actual insight.

Here's a template of Anarchist420 posts:

1) Read about random wikipedia article

2) Post question about said topic that is a thinly veiled device for step 3)

3) Regurgitate wikipedia content about said topic in content

The circlejerk of o/ps inanity continues.



Exampli Gratia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening

Title: Do you think _any prominent figure in early us history_ was a product of First Great Awakening

Body: It is clear through his action that _said prominent figure's_ thoughts are deeply rooted in revivalism, which is the center piece of the First Great Awakening. I think almost certainly was a product of it, then.

^^ Conjured the above bullshit having read no more than 10% of the wiki article read.

 

[Anarchist420]

1) Read about random wikipedia article 2) Post question about said topic that is a thinly veiled device for step 3) 3) Regurgitate wikipedia content about said topic in content

Please show me what in my OP that I got from wikipedia.

About the only thing I got from wikipedia was the ~90% figure since John Hancock got ~90% of the vote against Bowdoin. I still knew how unpopular the Constitution was by piecing information together anyway.

I regularly talk with the Constitutional Law professor I had over 4 years ago and he was the one who told me about the compact theory. I got a 77.2% average in that course.

John Tyler and Thomas Jefferson were probably the only Presidents who held to it as they were the only Presidents who supported secession.

 

[chowderhead]

What does Dr. Paul think about this?

 

[jman19]

Please show me what in my OP that I got from wikipedia.

About the only thing I got from wikipedia was the ~90% figure since John Hancock got ~90% of the vote against Bowdoin. I still knew how unpopular the Constitution was by piecing information together anyway.

I regularly talk with the Constitutional Law professor I had over 4 years ago and he was the one who told me about the compact theory. I got a 77.2% average in that course.

John Tyler and Thomas Jefferson were probably the only Presidents who held to it as they were the only Presidents who supported secession.

Just so you know, that's not exactly considered good.

 

[Anarchist420]

Just so you know, that's not exactly considered good.

I knew that it was just mediocre

What does Dr. Paul think about this?

He believed in the compact theory but I'm not sure if he still does... I hope he now knows that the States were forced to enter the union. Dr. Paul was really the only member of Congress to believe in the compact theory since Clement "the Constitution as it is, the Union as it was" Vallandigham. John Randolph of Roanoke believed in it. John C Calhoun believed in it as did the first U.S Senator of FL (David Levy Yulee).
George Clinton probably believed in it. John Marshall was a huge opponent of it because he was a fascist believing the union to be bound by the blood of the elites (that is, "we the people and our posterity" in the preamble). Lincoln said the people were all brothers and sisters just like Hitler believed that those he considered to be Germans were all brothers and sisters... he believed that the nation was superior to the States.

Judge Napolitano believes in the Compact theory.

 

[Oldgamer]

You know in Texas a small minority of folks wanted to push a petition for the White House to respond to a succession request. Anyway, the majority of Texas do not want this. I imagine those who carry on about seceding in certain states are not taking into account that it just wouldn't be feasible nor be advantageous for their state citizens. All that wonderful governement funding, for services such as police, fire departments, schools, military protection, border control and so forth would quickly come to a halt, to my understanding.

Here is a very good article that talks about the pro's and con's of a state sucession. Caveman News States Rights

 

[nageov3t]

I would agree that states should have the right to secede, but I'd also put a requirement on it like a ballot referendum requiring a super-majority of the population to vote in favor of it so that we don't see a handful of crackpots controlling the whole process.

 

[Zaap]

I imagine those who carry on about seceding in certain states are not taking into account that it just wouldn't be feasible nor be advantageous for their state citizens. All that wonderful governement funding, for services such as police, fire departments, schools, military protection, border control and so forth would quickly come to a halt, to my understanding.

First off, I'm not in favor of secession of any states...

But your reasoning isn't entirely valid. Most of the things you list are more often state-funded than federal. Border control is almost a joke at the federal level as the new fashion is to mostly just ignore it. And let's be honest- an independent Texas would still enjoy the military protection of the rest of the US (like anyone could just invade a territory right beside the rest of the USA and have the US do nothing about it). They'd only need a small default military of their own.


From a financial standpoint, the state would probably make out pretty good. It would be able to enforce its own national border policies that would probably be more effective than current, and Texas is on its own something like the 13th richest economy of the entire world. It'd be up there on the list with Canada, Australia and Mexico (Yes that's right Mexico isn't actually a poor country by a long-shot although many stupid chumps in the US think so). For years, Texas got .90 for every dollar it sent to D.C. Only recently has it just about broke even, so the financial argument it a wash- to a net gain.

And if Texas the country continued to provide the best business climate as Texas the state, businesses would keep flocking there at a faster rate than Texas businesses going to the other 49 states.

I'd say the real negatives would be political, not financial. The rest of the US would be that much weaker without TX, than TX would be without the US.

 

[blackangst1]

I stopped reading after:

because the first 13 only joined the Constitution because of propaganda and force.

 

[brycejones]

OP surfing the net while high again.

 

[Anarchist420]

Here's some truth straight from Fuck the Government that no one else could've said better:
"The constitution is a joke. I hate when people bring up the founding fathers and the constitution when referring to liberty. Thomas Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention. John Adams was in London. Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Hancock refused to go to the constitutional convention because they thought it was basically a big statist plot. Many of the people that signed the constitution were slave owners, and all of the signers hated it. The federalists didn't think it gave the government enough powers, and the anti-federalists thought that everything in the constitution would be taken out of context in order to grow the government. They just thought signing it would be better than doing nothing. Also, the constitution did not stop the government from invading Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran (1953), Korea, Vietnam, or any of the other countries since world war 2. The second amendment did not stop the national firearms act in 1934, gun control act of 1968, the machine gun ban in 1986, the background check bill in 1993, or the gun free school act in 1995 (although it did stop the one in 1990). The third amendment did not stop the asset forfeiture laws which allow police (which are essentially soldiers today) to steal a house if the person is suspected of being a drug dealer. The fourth amendment did not stop the Patriot Act or the NSA Prism / Xkeyscore programs. The fifth amendment does not stop eminent domain because the term "just compensation" is subjective, and with regards to the NDAA it's still in the court system, it was banned for a little bit then a higher court declared it to be constitutional but we'll have to wait until it goes to the supreme court- and we can all guess how that will turn out. I could go on about every other "constitutional right" that is violated, and the government can get away with it by saying "rights aren't unlimited, so these policies aren't a violation of your constitutional rights" which basically means they determine our rights. Also, the original constitution has 3 federal crimes (there have been 4 since the 13th amendment) but the government has over 4,500 federal crimes. Also, the constitution says only congress can coin money- not the federal reserve- but that hasn't stopped the fed in the past hundred years. I don't think congress should coin / print money- but the point is that the constitution does not allow the federal reserve to print money. Believe it or not, the government's guns have a little more power than a piece of paper. [emphasis added by me]"

If you're still not convinced, then something is not right and a lot of bad shit is going to happen to most of us.

 

[IGBT]

most states would be better off returning to territory status and reclaim confiscated state sovereignty.

 

[Darwin333]

You know in Texas a small minority of folks wanted to push a petition for the White House to respond to a succession request. Anyway, the majority of Texas do not want this. I imagine those who carry on about seceding in certain states are not taking into account that it just wouldn't be feasible nor be advantageous for their state citizens. All that wonderful governement funding, for services such as police, fire departments, schools, military protection, border control and so forth would quickly come to a halt, to my understanding.

Here is a very good article that talks about the pro's and con's of a state sucession. Caveman News States Rights

Not that I would support it or anything but Texas is in a very unique position regarding secession and that goes 3 fold if they could talk Louisiana into going with them. They would actually gain a fuckton of income/revenue.