Ron Paul Defends Secession

Your logic rests on the basis that might makes right. Flawed logic given the fact that you support a democratically elected president and representatives instead of a dictatorship.

With regards to the Articles of Confederation, I did not know we still used those as a basis for law in this country. Maybe I am misinformed but from what I understand the Confederation was abolished and then the Federation of the United States was formed from the states that were part of the Confederation.

Under English Common Law, precedent is important and forms a major part of the legal system. President Lincoln's argument was that the forming of a new constitution did not invalidate all the precedents of the old document. He argued that the perpetual union was still valid and in force.

If you want to, you can argue that President Lincoln was wrong, but it was still his viewpoint that won out. As a result, no court in our land would now recognize a right of secession. So, my argument is perfectly and completely logical.

If you don't believe that, try to argue for a right of secession of any state before the Supreme Court of the United States today and see how far you get.

Illegal wire tapping of americans, illegal wars continued and increased, torturing US citizens, holding US citizens in secret prisions without right to challenge and CIA illegal kidnapping are not enough reasons? Go figure.

You'd dissolve the government because a Republican president and congress enacted those things? (With support from these "seceding" states by the way.)

Don't you think a more sane solution would be to, I don't know, just elect new representatives or challenge these laws in the supreme court?

Do you even understand what the purpose of the Republic is?

Did you listen to what I said above at all? Or are you just mindlessly repeating absurdly contradictory ideas even though I've already demonstrated why they're stupid?

Well Saladin you can try to keep electing people like Obama but even he continues to break the law. The government no longer represents the people, I do not agree with the governer on anything but the fact that he wants to succeed. Your constant bickering of petty differences shows your hotheadedness and ignorance again. This does not look well from anyone's point of view that you maybe trying to convince but I would wager all other methods are failing at this point.

First off, it's *secession genius. Not succession.

It's anti-American because it literally is fucking anti-America. You are leaving the country to form your own, you can't really do that and be pro-America.

Not that it makes you a bad person or that you're not allowed to discuss it, but it's a stupid fucking idea and it's kind of offensive. Especially given the political climate of the past 8 years, where these fucktards were calling anyone who contradicted George Bush anti-American while waving their giant patriotic erections and now subsequently are calling for secession because they lost the election. It's absurd and it's offensive. It shows that you guys don't BELIEVE in the Republic.

And yes, Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, but there were plenty of Federalists too. And guess who won in the end? The Federalists.

They won because states became MORE oppressive then the Federal government was. They denied their citizens rights guaranteed by the constitution and so through the 14th amendment, states were required to uphold the constitution as well.

Do you know any U.S. history? Are you aware that we fought the civil war over this argument and that movements like civil rights epitomize why Federal power is important?

God, where do you morons come from?

We don't like him because he's a moron.

There's nothing American or anti-American about it, he just says things that are not smart.

and an example of this would be? i think getting rid of the (un)federal reserve would probably stop the corporate hold on our world and personal lives

No one is saying Texans are horrible people, but a lot of the people there do hold absurd political opinions.

Subsequently, they VOTE for representatives who hold those opinions to the Federal government who subsequently force those views on the rest of us.

That's why people get mad at some Texans. Not because they're bad people, but because their political opinions are, quite frankly, retarded.

Did you even watch the video?

Was there an amendment to the constitution that abolished secession during the civil war? My point is that I don't think there's a law against it but I could be wrong. The 2nd amendment gives the states the rights to everything the federal government doesnt have a right to and unless there is a law binding the states to the union...then they can secede.

Civil war or law doesnt matter. The constitution gives the people the right to take back their government in the event that it no longer represents the people. (e.g illegal wire tapping of american citizens, continued war on terror, illegal kidnapping by cia and continued torture on innocent people). Your logic of might makes right fails at the point you accept democracy as a good option for government. Without the right to choose our own fate it is no longer democratic and becomes dictatorial.

Nkeg, your point is technically, legally, and even constitutionally correct. But historically it is not correct when it comes to actual practice.

The Civil War was the test case. The Southern states had just as much if not more right to secede back then (since we were even less federal at the time) . . . and if there ever was a time to allow secession, it was then.

But we refused the right of secession and that has been the precedent ever since.

Nowadays, our country is even more interconnected and even more federalized. The distances between coasts have been completely reduced due to transit and there is greater cohesion through our infrastructure throughout the country (Like many people, I've personally lived in 4 different states).

If we didn't allow it back in the Civil War, it's unthinkable that we would allow it now as we are far less a collection of states and far more a singular country then we were back then.

But technically, legally, constitutionally, and in almost every way you are correct . . . except in historical practice and the precedent that the Civil War set (that we reserve the right to go to war with whoever tries to secede).

That's my argument anyway and it's not exactly ironclad. =)

We're not Greek city states, we're a nation.

Furthermore, by that standard states wouldn't have to follow the constitution because they'd be independent.

Then we would just have the social movements of the twentieth century all over again because states invariably would deny people basic rights based on racism or other stupid things.

Our educational system has failed us....
I've seen the Leno interviews and it's scary how either uninformed or misinformed some young people are...

hey! it's not just "young" people. "old" people are just as misinformed...maybe a little less but dont blame all of my generation

When I am sitting in my university classes they talk about the drinking party that night rather then the discussion we are having in class. The mentality of being a celebrity and partying your life away has got to be the biggest determent to our society. These reality shows that are on constantly teach people that being selfish, greedy and conceded are not only normal every day behaviors but without them you will not make it in life. How much does watching this type of TV constantly affect the human mind and given that the media conglomerates admit to doing this on purpose for their advertising revenue what does this say about our "profit over progress" society?

Absurd, prejudiced and totally retarded. Then again it's pretty consistent with the rest of your posts Ragan,

No one is saying people can't demonstrate for what they believe in, what we're talking about is how completely dumb and hypocritical their beliefs are.

But I'm sure you knew that, just spreading the propaganda like a good little conservative.

And by the way, if anything, profanity is a sign of intelligence because it demonstrates that the speaker is intelligent enough to understand that words are words. They cannot harm you and there is no "curse" in saying them. They're expressive and they carry specific meaning.

Only a pathetic moron incapable of independent thought would still latch on to what your parents told you when you were 8. That really is the only justification.

And in case you forgot, I can guarantee you any President ever sworn into office swears on a regular basis. Dropouts huh?

@ lordd

Another trite observation with an uncritical answer.

Maybe where you are, college students don't have active discussions. But at my school, discussion is frequently productive and intelligent. And it comes from those "party" students you spend so much time degrading.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you've made a hasty judgment about people you know nothing about?

Maybe they are stupid, but could you really determine that by hearing a ten second conversation?

Read the following amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And with that in mind go find the part in the Constitution where it gives the United States the power to prevent a State from seceding.

Its not the constitution, but set in precedent that these United states shall cover this continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean...Also in that same precedent that prevented any European nation from settling new colonies in the Western hemisphere. The same precedent that gave the Union authority to go after and defeat the Confederacy for leaving the Union. The constitution is a 'faith based' document, not a rule of law.

You sound more interested in venting some frustration than stating your opinion. Drink a glass of water or something - have some tea. Calm down and talk.

If being pro federal means supporting torture, illegal kidnapping, increasing the war on terror and wire tapping americans illegally then I think I picked the right side of this fight.

No, being pro-federal means supporting the constitution. Which bans all of those things.

Man are you just a propagandist or what?

You do realize half of these teabagger, secessionist assholes SUPPORT torture and all that shit right?

That does not change the facts.

lol, what facts? You haven't even listed or established any.

You're just floundering now. Literally just making shit up.

Get back to me when you have something to say.

Yes, pro-federal is supporting the constitution. Where in the constitution does it say you can't secede?

Fact Obama still tortures innocent people.
http://current.com/items/89989053_obama-out-sources-torture-to-other-counties.ht...

Fact Obama continues to allow illegal rendition of innocent people.
http://current.com/items/89784910_obama-to-allow-anti-terror-abductions-to-conti...

Fact Obama Escalates the War On Terror.
http://current.com/items/89989080_obama-escalates-the-war-on-terror.htm

Fact Obama Increases Bush's Illegal Wiretapping Program.
http://current.com/items/89989092_obama-increases-bushs-illegal-wiretapping-prog...

Fact Obama denies people the right to question their indefinite detention. - Habeas Corpus
http://current.com/items/89989122_obama-denies-prisoners-the-right-to-question-d...

If these facts aren't enough to make you question your governments actions then you are not an informed US citizen and should not speak until you take some time to learn the basics of the topics you try to discuss.

I agree, unfortunately some people are just flat afraid to think.

Ron Paul is a very smart man.

Thank you for making mention of the too-enthusiastic denouncing of the dollar. There's a lot of words like "collapse" and "amero" being thrown around, but not much explanation behind it.

Well said. I find it strange how Repubs and Dems freak out whenever they hear Dr. Paul explain basic facts about US history, the government, and the potential consequences of our continued corruption and carelessness.

There was none because it was just as stupid of an idea then as it is now as it was in the 19th century.

The same people always win, choice is an illusion. If people seriously think Ron Paul ever has a chance of winning an election they really are bonkers. This is no longer a democracy.

OK Nietzsche. Choice still exists in the sense that you can vote for candidate A or candidate B, though they may in fact be moderate in most of their day-to-day politics, the differing views in certain issues is what people vote for, regardless of what the candidate can actually do about it. Case in point, the President cannot single-handedly change taxes/abortion laws/war/marriage rights, yet that's all we hear about.

It is indeed a democracy, however.

If you analyze the American Political system using Game Theory (a discipline that uses mathematics to determine the best strategy for winning a "game" which is often an abstraction of a real-world scenario) you'll see that it was likely for a two-party system to evolve. Once that happened, it was also quite easy for a group of people to maintain control through every elected candidate. They could then push their own agendas while slowly eroding liberties a little at a time so that noone complains. It's such an easy system to corrupt that all it really takes is the will to do so. History has proven time and again that such people are common.

Using your game theory, where did you start analyzing?

magnusdeus --

I don't want to step on Sam's toes here, but I would think that looking at the axioms, or rules of the game, would be where any interested game theorist would begin. Once you know the rules, you can make the most probable bets.

And if you can make the rules, it's easy to rig an election. When I was at UCI, Kent Johnson demonstrated this in about 5 minutes in a Metalogic class.

"If you analyze the American Political system using Game Theory (a discipline that uses mathematics to determine the best strategy for winning a "game" which is often an abstraction of a real-world scenario) you'll see that it was likely for a two-party system to evolve."

Sam,

ONLY under zero sum. A pretty good example of where Sam's statement fails in non-zero sum games is the following business scenario: where a new technology enables a new substitute (w/ a new, lower barrier to entry - as a consequence of the new technology) permitting the entrance of a new competitor into an established market.

Good reference with game theory, though I would argue (using the prisoner example) that there is little to no corroboration between Presidential candidates or political parties, as has become evident in the last decade. I won't deny that a two-party system was favored from the beginning, but I wouldn't say either parties are heavily manipulating the system to the point that we, the people, have little to no say in the process.

@ Sam

Sorry choice is not an illusion, there are many choices people can make besides democrat and republican. The problem is people are uninformed and do not know their options. For one they could succeed from the union and do as they please with their local government. Another option is the constitutional fail safe clause that allows the people to take back their government in the event that they no longer represent the will of the people. As we see with the war and illegal wire tapping of american citizens... they are not doing the will of the people and therefor the people must be the ones to make any real change. That is our choices, continue down this path or choose the only alternatives left to us.

@lordd

"As we see with the war and illegal wire tapping of american citizens... they are not doing the will of the people and therefor the people must be the ones to make any real change."

The problem with this statement is that there is no "will of the people". Everyone has different views as to how the government should be run. You disagree with the actions of the government but many people feel that the wiretapping has made them safer.

To tell you the truth im not 100% sure as to where to stand on the issue. I am a federalist and support the constitution but the constitution is a "living" document and therefore it needs to change with the times. The information age we live in is far more dangerous than any other time period and there needs to be a balance between civil liberties and safety.

@fun size

Living in fear is not living at all. We sacrifice our freedoms for our safety so we can live our lives but what is life without the freedom to live it?

If we are to make these sacrifices, at what point do we drawl the line and has that line already been crossed when invading a persons privacy becomes common placed?

The first step towards dictatorship is always surveillance of the population to remove the trouble makers. This is why many people disagree with illegally spying on American citizens, history has shown it to be a very bad move towards dictatorial governments.

Again this is only one issue that the American people strongly disagree with that Obama continues to support past Bush's presidency. The continued war on terror, CIA kidnapping and "interrogation techniques" are also very important issues that people opposed during the primaries and voted for Obama to end. The continued allowance of violations of our constitutional rights that Bush brought have not been retracted, detention without reason and new secret prisons found within the united states are just a few issues he refuses to tackle.

No Obama has had plenty of time to prove himself and has failed at every important step.

ares, do you know where money comes from

You MUST be from Texas...and anyway I love picking up trash! It gives me a sense of accomplishment! Say no to littering!!!

You are correct, Texas does not need any of the Federal handouts - and our Governor turned down the money. What's the matter? You worried about handouts? Get a job and don't worry about Texans. They are hard working people with morals. Not trying to live off other Americans. I bet you have already applied for every hand out there is.....

You sure do know me. I don't have a job? & I spend government money? Don't you know what they say about people who assume? Thank you for stereotyping me, and for reminding me why this whole country is on backlash to the civil war. I mean, who wouldn't want to own their own little slave right? You're insulting your own intelligence.

it was clearly clipped to minimize time. is that censoring? is al gore out to distort the video?

Minimizing speech is an easy way to control discussion. Corporate news on the TV will not let you speak longer then 5 minutes because nothing but conventional wisdom can be said without having to go into detailed explanations of your statements. It would take at least a half hour to a hour to do a full discussion on any normally complex subject given the viewing audience's average knowledge base.

He is not actually attempting to secede.

It is just attempt to get the public to realize that state rights are being encroached upon by the federal government.

Really? encroaching on the rights of states? Is that the phrase you want to use?

Yes. If you like I can give you numerous examples of how state responsibilities have been taken over by the federal government and have subsequently failed.

i'm highlighting your choice of words. if your superior tells you that you are going to change how you're doing your job is it an infringement of your workers rights?

regardless of the outcome this is the chain of directive down to state level.

Not true. The federal government is an agreement between the states.

I'm not sure you fully understand the constitution.

Every right not specifically designated to the federal government is a right of each individual state. The federal government does not have the ability to take over those rights and make their own federal programs that reign over them.

The powers of states and the federal government in the United States are part of a system called federalism. This does not mean that one is necessarily "boss" over the other, as you like to put it.

This is an excerpt from Stanford University that explains federalism (),

"Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area."

pdthorn got owned

Staement of theday.

+2 Kudos

I Agree.

Thats stupid..