-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nevada Petition to Secede
- Thread starter JohnMoses
- Start date
john-in-reno
Regular Member
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ca-and-create-its-own-new-government/3ff8v0HR
There is already one started and it has 7k of the 17k names needed
There is already one started and it has 7k of the 17k names needed
ed2276
Regular Member
Do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
david.ross
Regular Member
People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.
I signed this petition instead:
Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
http://wh.gov/9FAY
I signed this petition instead:
Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
http://wh.gov/9FAY
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."
From a speech to the House of Representatives, Jan. 12, 1848.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
Official OCDO Statement on The Secession Petitions
I know that a lot of people see these petitions as a vehicle for sending a message of dissatisfaction after the election.
However, I think it is important to publicly state that OCDO is NOT in support of seeing the nation torn apart.
Our vision is of an America where our Constitutional protections are fully realized for all people in all states. The ONLY way to do that is to keep America strong.
The best way to fight to system is to BECOME the system.
We do this by electing pro-liberty candidates at the local, state, and federal level.
We do this by making sure the next generation is educated about gun rights and other pro-liberty issues.
We do this by challenging violations of rights in the courts.
We do this by inviting people to go shooting.
We don't do this by taking our ball and going home.
John
However, I think it is important to publicly state that OCDO is NOT in support of seeing the nation torn apart.
Our vision is of an America where our Constitutional protections are fully realized for all people in all states. The ONLY way to do that is to keep America strong.
The best way to fight to system is to BECOME the system.
We do this by electing pro-liberty candidates at the local, state, and federal level.
We do this by making sure the next generation is educated about gun rights and other pro-liberty issues.
We do this by challenging violations of rights in the courts.
We do this by inviting people to go shooting.
We don't do this by taking our ball and going home.
John
Mr. Pierce, far more succinctly than myself, stated what I believe in the post above.
The Big Guy
Regular Member
John
I was not aware that OC.ORG had an "Official" position on anything but the open carry of firearms. To say otherwise says that OC.org represents me as a user of the site and I strongly and strenuously object to it. One should join organizations like NRA, Brady Campaign, ACLU or AARP or many others if they want a group to speak for them.
I am not saying what my position is on Secession as it has nothing to do with the open carry of firearms and in my opinion should not be on here.
While what you stated may be your personal opinion, don't presume to speak for all other users of this site with your "official" position. If indeed it is so, I will asked to be removed from the roll of users of this site.
TBG
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
Big Guy,
We DO have official positions on a variety of liberty-related topics almost all of which tie back to the rules of the forum and the mission of the site.
However, those positions are mine and Mike's positions as the owners of the site. The only time we claim to speak on behalf of the forum members is regarding open carry.
Make sense?
Thanks!
John
We DO have official positions on a variety of liberty-related topics almost all of which tie back to the rules of the forum and the mission of the site.
However, those positions are mine and Mike's positions as the owners of the site. The only time we claim to speak on behalf of the forum members is regarding open carry.
Make sense?
Thanks!
John
turborich
Regular Member
I wouldn't want my name on that list as you may been identified as a domestic terrorist or be given some other title. Your home may even get raided. I'm not in any hurry to end up in one of those "Fema camps"
ed2276
Regular Member
The problem with your sentiment is that both speech and petition are constitutionally protected rights under 1st Amendment. Treason, as defined in the Constitution consists only of levying war against the United States. Speaking about secession and petitioning your government for a redress of wrongs is not treason.
As for the petition you signed, U.S. citizens cannot be deported for petitioning their government. Bills of attainder are illegal under the U.S. Constitution, so you cannot strip a U.S. citizen of his civil rights...speech and petition...and punish him for exercising those rights.
You might want to cool your jets and allow that your fellow citizens have rights to express themselves and petition their government, just as you have a right to express your support for a tyrannical empire.
jfrey123
Regular Member
Yah, because people who express an opinion that isn't popular should be shot, right? (Calling to have someone charged with treason is no better than calling for their execution)
ed2276
Regular Member
The only thing "strong" in America at present is a government willing to use force and coercion against its own citizens.
This flies in the face of logic and experience. This is saying, the only way to fight corruption is to become corrupt. The only way to fight tyranny is to become a tyrant. They system...government...is one of force, imprisonment, crushing dissent, violence, and coercion. When people have the desire to lord over others, as in elective office, they naturally exercise power and claim authority to do so. If they are inclined to rule over others, to tell them what to do, then they must necessarily use the tools of the state..force, fear, coercion...to accomplish those ends.
Pro-liberty candidates don't get elected in numbers sufficient to make a difference. Pro-liberty candidates by seeking office are expressing a desire to rule over others. Thus, they are willing to make laws and use force to carry them out.
Education is nice. You can get all the education you like about those subjects, but it will do you no good if the majority of the people are for tyranny. When the majority is dependent of government for their subsistence, and the next generation is beleaguered with debt, unemployment, etc. education about gun rights and pro-liberty issues will be far off their radar screens. They will be pre-occupied by more immediate needs.
You meant the government courts, with government appointed, government paid judges? Yeah, how is that going?
Very simplistic! "Here, Tom, take this gun and aim at that target. Ok, now pull the trigger. Bullseye!!!! Now don't you feel free? Look at all those taxes and regulations and thousands of laws that have fallen by the wayside because you hit the bullseye!!"
Secessionists aren't going anywhere. They stay right where they are within their resident states. They merely are separating themselves from a tyrannical central government, which claims the right to oppress them and invade their rights; which will not leave them in peace to enjoy freedom among their families, friends, and neighbors.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
+1
You just want to review your argument regarding Bills of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative license to kill the subject(s) of the bill. The lesser form that stops short of homicide is a Bill of Pains and Penalties--exile, stripped of property, etc. Possibly even ears cut off or nose notched, but I'd have to look those up.
For any readers interested, the problem with a Bill of Attainder is that it is a legislative decree; you can be killed by anyone--without trial or due process. No grand jury indictment. No trial. No confronting witnesses against you. No compulsory service for witnesses in your favor. Just a decree that you are an outlaw, meaning removed from the protection of the laws, and anybody can kill you without penalty. With the added expectation that some would try to kill you. There may have been rewards offered, but I'd have to look that part up.
Of historical note is that Thomas Jefferson himself advocated a Bill of Attainder from the VA legislature against the depredations of a gang (or troop, depending on your view of the facts) of royalists operating in the VA countryside during the revolution. The men targeted claimed a commission from the king or colonial governor, and as such would not have been criminals. Theft and pillage seemed to be a big part of their game, and they were causing some real ruckus, thus the doubt about their credentials. I forget how it turned out. But, I do recall that later, Patrick Henry had occasion to criticize Jefferson for his advocacy of the Bill of Attainder. And, not a gentle criticism, neither.
ed2276
Regular Member
Thanks for the education, Citizen. I revise my post and replace Bill of Attainder with Bill of Pains and Penalties.
DVC
Regular Member
28kfps
Regular Member
DVC Haven’t seen you post for a while. I guess this subject rattled your computer keyboard.
I believe the right to protest within legal boundaries is a very valuable right however, It would appear to me this is a knee jerk reaction due to the result of the election.
Just my own thought however I believe the initiators realize there is no or little chance of it being successful. I am all for trying to wake up Washington DC. Not sure a petition to Secede will have much of an influence. I am going to make a prediction and that is, it will never happen. To argue for or against the issue might make for some good conversation. However, I believe a mute point.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Lets be a little more precise. Those are not beliefs, they are conclusions. And, as such, are relative to the information and consideration available to the person drawing the conclusion.
The underlying premise of John's statement is that the union is salvageable and can be returned to liberty. Or, possibly, he is uncertain but is unwilling to give up trying because the alternatives to restored liberty under the existing union is too scary or too risky. I happen to agree that the alternatives are scary and risky.
But, I happen to disagree that liberty will be restored under the existing union. Two reasons. The first here. The second in a succeeding post.
I am going to claim some extra knowledge. I am into my third biography on men who had a lot to do with the fall of the Roman Republic and its transformation into imperial Rome under the emperors. After reading a few of these, it becomes clear that the politicians and upper classes, rather than try to avert disaster, merely tried to either hold onto what advantages they already had or worked to get as much out of the situation for themselves as they could. Almost nobody but Cicero and a few others worked to actually preserve the Republic. The only folks who took a decisive act were Julius Caesar's assassins. But, all they did was start ten years of jockeying for power and civil wars. (They left Cicero out of the planning and the deed, so he's not a part of the assassination picture.)
The republic was totally dysfunctional. The lower classes, especially in the city of Rome, mainly taken advantage of by the senate and upper classes, wanted fairness for themselves (and some freebies). But, the senate and upper classes were unwilling to play fair, wanting to keep their property and advantage. Everybody was so busy trying to make the most of the situation for himself, that almost nobody was working to make the tough sacrifices needed to preserve the Republic.
And, as it happened, way back in his early adulthood, Caesar aligned himself with the masses by way of marriage. And, remained a populist throughout his political career. So, the masses aligned themselves on the guy who was aiming for dictatorship. And, of course, as things got worse in the final run up to dissolution, the masses seemed to rely on Julius Caesar to look out for their welfare. Make no mistake, besides being a master general and conquerer of Gaul, he was a master politician. The boy was very good at politics. So, the masses were not particularly working on preserving the republic, either. Its not like there were crowds yelling at Caesar to knock off his obvious rise to power and restore the republic.
Now, here's the really dangerous part. For all apparent purposes, only a very few people seemed to recognize that the Republic was so dysfunctional that it was effectively dead. Julius Caesar recognized it. I have little doubt that was the reason he went for it--aimed for dictatorship.
Even after Caesar's death, while some hoped the republic would be restored, people divided themselves into the Caesarian faction and the republican faction (the senate and upper classes who were earlier trying to hold onto their power and advantage.) Nobody seemed to be saying "lets restore the republic to the way it should be." There were sighs of relief when the armies of Octavian and Marc Antony (both Caesarians) seemed to gain the upper hand over things for the stability it seemed to offer; but nobody was coming forward and saying, "OK, you two. Assume the duties of co-consuls and put the republic back on sound footing."
As a chilling sign for today, the people in the government during the last years of the Republic didn't seem too concerned with following the Roman constitution, except maybe avoiding shocking supporters too much, or opening the door to being prosecuted by a political opponent.
The people in our government have shown no sudden turn to selfless service aimed at restoring our Republic, there is no reason to think they will suddenly have a collective epiphany and start. They're there for themselves--power and money. There is no reason to think they will suddenly give that up collectively and start working to restore the Republic. There is every reason to think they will try to hang on as long as possible out of self-interest, or try to engineer the most for themselves as each crisis develops. Ron Paul is our Cicero in a loose manner of speaking.
So, while liberty and a republic functioning under its constitution is possible--all it would take is a lot of agreement to go back to playing by the rules--I conclude that its pretty unlikely. Human nature hasn't changed.
Nonetheless, its worth trying because the alternative is pretty grim. So, I agree with John that we should try to work within the system. I just don't hold it as a vision; and I say why I have my conclusions.
Last edited: