Louisiana Secession Petition

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Maximatic, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is pathetic. Some people in Louisiana want to secede from the Union, so they are signing this petition where they beg the Obama administration to allow them to peacefully withdraw from the Union. This is how you affirm that you are owned, that you exist at the pleasure of your owner, that you are not sovereign, that you are subservient to the institution which, incidentally, derives its power from you, that your owner must have the power to grant you your stupid petition.

    If you want to secede, you don't beg the government to grant you permission, you simply inform them that you have seceded.
     
  2. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is not an option per constitutional law and would be met with armed resistance.
     
  3. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So the general government would attack the citizens of Louisiana, if they no longer want to be a member of its club. You understand that that's tyrannical, barbaric, right?
     
  4. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um, that didn't work out very well the last time.

    It also wouldn't be in Louisiana's best interests. They are one of the biggest welfare queens as a state.

    Now, if NJ wanted to secede, they would come out ahead.
     
  5. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure let them succeed from the union; then when another Katrina or natural disaster hits them who's gonna bail them out? Or if the Mexican's decide to invade their swamps? Louisiana receives more in Federal Aid then they pay into the system. Those who want to secede from the US should stop their whining and get over the election loss.
     
  6. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, we've done it before. That land does not belong to them, it belongs to the Nation as a whole and therefore they would be stealing it if they try to take it from us.
     
    FactChecker and (deleted member) like this.
  7. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,169
    Likes Received:
    12,792
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Nobody is seceding, it will not happen.
     
  8. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I know. There's also the issue that it hasn't been shown that the state (whatever that is) wants to secede. The petition was created by some doctor, and so far, it only has about 15,000 signatures. My point is that this stunt, unless it is intended to show that the the federal government will use force to keep all its states as members (which we already know), or that many people in Louisiana are very displeased with the Obama administration (which we already know), is counterproductive. All they are doing is reminding everyone of who is in charge. And the way they are doing it fails to address the bigger problem. This was scratched by Wolf Ritter. The "law" that Louisiana would be violating is just something written down that says "this thing that is being written is the supreme law of the land", and it was agreed to by some men who are now all dead. Yet it will be enforced violently on people who have not agreed to it, moreover that they explicitly disagree with it. And that law is supposed to be binding on both parties, but the party that it is designed to bind the most (the Federal Government) fails, on multiple counts to uphold its end of the "agreement". In the end it is not law (whatever that is) that rules these people and states. It is capricious force.
     
  9. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The territory of Louisiana assented to be governed by the laws of the US and it's states of it's own free will, the Union is perpetual, period. Barbarism would be denying you the right of movement, you can leave America any time you want, but Louisiana is part of America until such time as the government of America decides to enact a law to allow it to secede or expels it itself.
     
  10. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, there are a lot of practical concerns involved here. We discussed this in the "Should Government Exist" thread.

    One of the facts of life is that just about every nation has laws against secession. At the very most, some regions are given autonomous rule (like the situation with Mindanao), but that typically only comes after a lot of conflict.

    Even so, regions granted autonomous rule still have to contend with whatever government forms in the aftermath.
     
  11. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then they are free to immigrate to another nation, their right of free movement is not impeded.
    In what way does the Federal Government fail to uphold it's end of the agreement? Louisiana is under the protection of the US Armed Forces, is it not? It's Constitutionally guaranteed rights are upheld, are they not? In what way has the Federal Government not upheld it's end of the bargain?
     
  12. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This assumes that the claim levied on the land by the dead men is valid. This is called assuming the consequent.
     
  13. Craftsman

    Craftsman Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only if they fail to take Texas with them.
     
  14. one more clone

    one more clone Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why does it seem the only war liberals want to fight is against their own countrymen?
     
  15. Craftsman

    Craftsman Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not likely. NJ is dependent on the other states to provide their commerce.
    A port only goes so far if you are not able to sell your imports and you have very limited exports.
     
  16. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In what way would it be invalid? I also took note of the fact that you ignored my question, in what way has the Federal government failed in it's obligations?
     
  17. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for NJ to have the ability to maintain their own system for these things. It's a highly industrialized and wealthy state.

    My expectations for Louisiana are much lower primarily because of the burden of poverty there. NJ still has poverty as well, but it's more manageable precisely because of already existing infrastructure.

    Operational costs would rise for NJ if they went independent, but they seem to have enough capital to make up for the difference.
     
  18. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    NDAA 2011
    Any law regulating weapons
    any law regulating vice (in violation of the DOI, which must be a legal document if the constitution is to be legal)
    income tax (16th amendment was ratified by force. two congressmen were kidnapped in order to force their presence at the assembly.)
    HR 347 (freedom to assemble)
    the Department Of Justice, in contradiction to Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, has allowed ex post facto laws to be passed (i.e. retroactive taxation), and, in contradiction to Posse Commitatus, has allowed the military to be used against citizens in the united States of America, resulting in the deaths of minor children and adults
    Nearly all laws justified by the commerce clause are in violation of what is well known to be the intention of the authors for that clause.
    Unreasonable searches and seizures are common place by federal agents acting to enforce other unconstitutional laws

    Look, since the burden of proof is on the accuser, the accuser needs to show that some de jure law has been violated. That means they need to prove that the legislation they want to enforce is law de jure. This cannot be shown by saying that some article in the enumeration of powers could be interpreted to allow such a law to be made. From understanding this vital aspect of law, it follows that there is precious little that the general government can legally do.

    I guess, If I wanted to, I could list thousands of laws that cannot be shown to be consistent with any of the powers delegated to the legislative or executive branches. But I don't feel like it, so go with that. Not that one single violation that a party persists in would not be enough to void any agreement.
     
  19. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You know we faught a civil war over this and a great Republican by the name of Abraham Lincoln said no!!!
    The only thing pathatic is the petition.
     
  20. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incorrect. SCOTUS upheld it.
    Incorrect. SCOTUS has upheld the right to bear arms that are sufficient for a militia.
    Negative. Commerce clause.
    I'd like to see your evidence that they were kidnapped.
    It says freedom to assembly, not unrestricted freedom of assembly. Just like it's not legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
    Incorrect, ex post facto applies to criminal and not civil affairs. The law does not say "In perpetuity unless a single case of criminal acts occurs".
    Based on?
    Define unreasonable search and seizure.

    White Vs Texas shows that it is the de jure law.
     
  21. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You're not understanding me. I don't care what the supreme court says. They are complicit in the crime. The burden of proof is a philosophical principal underlying legislation.
     
  22. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can be as technical as you want. It doesn't matter. The country will not allow the break up of the United States and precedent shows that when push comes to shove the U.S Government can and will enforce that. Even George Washington clamped down on secessionists during the Whiskey Rebellion. And of course Lincoln used the full force of the federal government to stop the South from succeeding.

    Who cares about some pitiful anti-American secessionist in Louisiana?
     
  23. Wolf Ritter

    Wolf Ritter Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which has been met.
     
  24. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That's sort of a crude, incomplete version of what I've been saying.
     
  25. Skeptical Heretic

    Skeptical Heretic New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean evidence from a philosophical stand-point that legislature is needed? Wouldn't an impartial court system be an example making sure certain aspects of law are ruled by certain restrictions instead of mob rule, improving innovation on a national and/or global scale are these the things you are asking about or am I misunderstanding your point.
     

Share This Page