Decession

Secession did not work the last time it was tried. Maybe it is time for decession. Decession is the opposite of accession. Accession is the term applied to the admission of a new State to the Union. Therefore, the term decession would be apt to describe the kicking of a State out of the Union.

While there are other States probably more deserving of decession, I nominate Massachusetts to be the first. Due to recent events in Boston, and the total willingness of the population to just go along, they have clearly demonstrated that they no longer hold any of the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The extent to which they have fallen from the first Patriot's Day to the last makes them the prime candidate, IMO.

Do I hear a second? Do I hear any other nominations for the first State to be deceded?

Boston's residents are Americans, and they support tracking terrorists down for capture. If you don't like it, yack away, there are plenty of gun-clinging bible thumping tea party 2.0 boneheads fighting for a turn at riding that soapbox hard.--sloppy seconds anyone?

I didn't realize just how many people on here are Alex Jones fans.

The Federal Government has the Constitutional Authority to use all resources at its disposal to assure the bombers are caught, dead or alive. If you don't like it, shut your screen off, peel your ass of your chair, and Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances...I suggest you band your little 'party' together, because it's going to take a loud collective voice to drown out all those appreciative Bostonians you seem hell-bent on railing against.

eye95 said:

Secession did not work the last time it was tried. Maybe it is time for decession. Decession is the opposite of accession. Accession is the term applied to the admission of a new State to the Union. Therefore, the term decession would be apt to describe the kicking of a State out of the Union.

While there are other States probably more deserving of decession, I nominate Massachusetts to be the first. Due to recent events in Boston, and the total willingness of the population to just go along, they have clearly demonstrated that they no longer hold any of the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The extent to which they have fallen from the first Patriot's Day to the last makes them the prime candidate, IMO.

Do I hear a second? Do I hear any other nominations for the first State to be deceded?

Click to expand...

OMG, this scary--you and I thinking alike. I was just thinking about this on Friday. California would be my first nominee.

But, the whole question was settled, or so the statists and history books tell us, with Lincoln's war to prevent Southern independence.

Its only logical, you see. /sarcasm The constitution nowhere says anything about being forever. In fact, it expressly says that any powers not delegated to the fedgov, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. So, the southern states were forced to remain.

Meanwhile, the previous contract--the Articles of Confederation--were expressly forever, and yet an unauthorized cabal secretly conspired against that contract, and then, after reaching agreement on a new scheme, worked tirelessly with a wider conspiracy to undo that contract and supplant it with their own scheme. Huh? What am I talking about? The Articles of Confederation. The full title of that document was Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. (emphasis by Citizen). The constitutional convention (unauthorized cabal) secretly conspired against the Articles of Confederation.

So, you can't leave a voluntary non-eternal union. But, if your betters don't like an expressly perpetual union they can pull you and yours out of it, and drag you into something else. And, then hold you there--at bayonet point if they feel like it.

See? Perfectly logical. That's why Massachussetts and California can't be deceded. It would cut into the fedgov's tax base too much.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Boston's residents are Americans, and they support tracking terrorists down for capture. If you don't like it, yack away, there are plenty of gun-clinging bible thumping tea party 2.0 boneheads fighting for a turn at riding that soapbox hard.--sloppy seconds anyone?

I didn't realize just how many people on here are Alex Jones fans.

The Federal Government has the Constitutional Authority to use all resources at its disposal to assure the bombers are caught, dead or alive. If you don't like it, shut your screen off, peel your ass of your chair, and Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances...I suggest you band your little 'party' together, because it's going to take a loud collective voice to drown out all those appreciative Bostonians you seem hell-bent on railing against.

Click to expand...

You missed a very important point. I don't care how grateful the people in Boston are and I don't care what rescources the gov has at its disposal. You cannot toss aside Constitutional rights when it is convinient. Now there are reports that every person in the lock down area consented to searches by law enforcement. To my knowledge, no one refused - NO ONE! That is how little our freedoms seem to mean to us as Americans these days. Boston PD and other agencies have said that they would have respected a piss off from a citizen not wanting LEO's searching their property, but I don't know if they would have respected that or not. And the people of Boston are thanking the wrong people - the bomber was found by a citizen and the police came to arrest him, just as if a common burglary had taken place. So, the lock down and door to door searches were a waste of time and resources.

The Constitution is not some random document that can be ignored at a whim. It has processes in place for amending it if indeed people think that it needs to do so as times change. The Constitution is a set of principles that define America. Our rights are inherent - they are not granted. It defines what the government's limits are, not what it has the right to do. When the Constitution is ignored and those principles fall by the wayside, we are no longer America. If you like living in a police state - then go to one.

acmariner99 said:

You missed a very important point. I don't care how grateful the people in Boston are and I don't care what rescources the gov has at its disposal. You cannot toss aside Constitutional rights when it is convinient. Now there are reports that every person in the lock down area consented to searches by law enforcement. To my knowledge, no one refused - NO ONE! That is how little our freedoms seem to mean to us as Americans these days. Boston PD and other agencies have said that they would have respected a piss off from a citizen not wanting LEO's searching their property, but I don't know if they would have respected that or not. And the people of Boston are thanking the wrong people - the bomber was found by a citizen and the police came to arrest him, just as if a common burglary had taken place. So, the lock down and door to door searches were a waste of time and resources.

The Constitution is not some random document that can be ignored at a whim. It has processes in place for amending it if indeed people think that it needs to do so as times change. The Constitution is a set of principles that define America. Our rights are inherent - they are not granted. It defines what the government's limits are, not what it has the right to do. When the Constitution is ignored and those principles fall by the wayside, we are no longer America. If you like living in a police state - then go to one.

Click to expand...

Exactly, you don't care what people think.

And they don't care what you think about your interpretation of the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government.

Freedom, and Liberty are not absolute. You want more Freedom and Liberty, go live in the woods, alone, far away from any other human.

I agree, the Constitution defines what the limits of the Government are, the Constitution clarifies what the Government has the Constitutional Authority to do.

Yes, we live in a Police State. What did you expect a Military State to evolve into? What did you expect our Imperialistic endeavors over the generations were going to lead to? Think about it, please.

Beretta92FSLady said:

If you don't like it, shut your screen off, peel your ass of your chair, and Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances...I suggest you band your little 'party' together, because it's going to take a loud collective voice to drown out all those appreciative Bostonians you seem hell-bent on railing against.

Click to expand...

Read: sit down and shut up.

I'm so sick of you repeating this. Convincing our fellow Americans of the rightness and practicality of our perspective – on fora such as this one – is very much a part of the process of changing government.

You know, that whole "majority rule" thing. Gotta convince the people, doncha know.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Yes, we live in a Police State. What did you expect a Military State to evolve into? What did you expect our Imperialistic endeavors over the generations were going to lead to? Think about it, please.

Click to expand...

You're right. And, yes, the (neo)-"conservative" right is to blame for this.

But so what? Your tone is "your fault, what did you expect?". If I was on the receiving end of such implied blame, I'd pitch a fit. Totally uncalled-for.

marshaul said:

You're right. And, yes, the (neo)-"conservative" right is to blame for this.

But so what? Your tone is "your fault, what did you expect?". If I was on the receiving end of such implied blame, I'd pitch a fit. Totally uncalled-for.

Click to expand...

Actually, I blame any and all who look to and desire a bigger, bloated, ever more powerful, nanny care state to take care of all their needs from cradle to grave with zero personal responsibility for anything! I call them Progressives. And this does include many republicans and almost all democrats.

I want, desire, work for, and dream of a return to the small, limited, and constitutionally respectful government that allows me and all others maximum liberty and personal responsibility!

It has been 100+ years of progressives to get in the crisis we are now so I am not looking for this dream of mine for a while, but I am hopeful for steady progress!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JoeSparky said:

Actually, I blame any and all who look to and desire a bigger, bloated, ever more powerful, nanny care state to take care of all their needs from cradle to grave with zero personal responsibility for anything! I call them Progressives. And this does include many republicans and almost all democrats.

I want, desire, work for, and dream of a return to the small, limited, and constitutionally respectful government that allows me and all others maximum liberty and personal responsibility!

It has been 100+ years of progressives to get in the crisis we are now so I am not looking for this dream of mine for a while, but I am hopeful for steady progress!

Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but you're ignoring a few subtleties.

The "progressive" left is largely and uniquely responsible for domestic-regulatory bloat, and the taxes upon which the parasite feeds.

But the "neoconservative" right is largely and uniquely to blame for military/overseas bloat, as well as the militarization of police (the topic of B92FSL's post).

"Their powers combined...!"

But seriously: by each taking their turn chipping away at the Constitutional limitations on government from their respective, opposite ends, they will eventually meet in the middle. They do this all while deferring due criticism, as most of the politically involved adopt partisan rhetoric, which invariably comes with exclusively partisan blame (specifically, all on the other side) for every encroachment of government.

Citizen said:

OMG, this scary--you and I thinking alike. I was just thinking about this on Friday. California would be my first nominee.

But, the whole question was settled, or so the statists and history books tell us, with Lincoln's war to prevent Southern independence.

Its only logical, you see. /sarcasm The constitution nowhere says anything about being forever. In fact, it expressly says that any powers not delegated to the fedgov, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. So, the southern states were forced to remain.

Meanwhile, the previous contract--the Articles of Confederation--were expressly forever, and yet an unauthorized cabal secretly conspired against that contract, and then, after reaching agreement on a new scheme, worked tirelessly with a wider conspiracy to undo that contract and supplant it with their own scheme. Huh? What am I talking about? The Articles of Confederation. The full title of that document was Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. (emphasis by Citizen). The constitutional convention (unauthorized cabal) secretly conspired against the Articles of Confederation.

So, you can't leave a voluntary non-eternal union. But, if your betters don't like an expressly perpetual union they can pull you and yours out of it, and drag you into something else. And, then hold you there--at bayonet point if they feel like it.

See? Perfectly logical. That's why Massachussetts and California can't be deceded. It would cut into the fedgov's tax base too much.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that perpetual meant it could exist forever but that also it could end, it was at least in the 18th century a word often used as meaning until it ends. (not meaning to side track your points, just discuss a side point)

Beretta92FSLady said:

Exactly, you don't care what people think.

And they don't care what you think about your interpretation of the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government.

Freedom, and Liberty are not absolute. You want more Freedom and Liberty, go live in the woods, alone, far away from any other human.

I agree, the Constitution defines what the limits of the Government are, the Constitution clarifies what the Government has the Constitutional Authority to do.

Yes, we live in a Police State. What did you expect a Military State to evolve into? What did you expect our Imperialistic endeavors over the generations were going to lead to? Think about it, please.

Click to expand...

I read this as "shut up and comply." If I live in a place with other people, I have to do what I am told or else. In a word -- NO! If it is within my power to insist my rights be respected, I will do so. Threats by the police state will be met with me keeping my mouth shut.

sudden valley gunner said:

My understanding is that perpetual meant it could exist forever but that also it could end, it was at least in the 18th century a word often used as meaning until it ends. (not meaning to side track your points, just discuss a side point)

Click to expand...

That makes sense in one light. For example, Jefferson's letter to (Madison?) wherein he discusses the idea that since the earth belongs to the living, no generation can bind a later generation, thus there should be a new constitution every twenty years or so. So, how could a confederation really be forever?

In another light, however, what would be the point of using the word perpetual? Its a bit tautalogical to say it will last until it ends. Everything lasts until it ends.

Of course, the whole thing was thunk up by politicians, so why trust anything they said? Their next document, the constitution, starts out with a galloping, runaway lie--we the people. Even a cursory glance into the history of the ratification period shows lots and lots of people were opposed to the constitution. The Federalists had to do an end-run around the people and set up ratification conventions in some states. Rhode Island, the only state to submit the constitution to a full referendum, rejected the constitution by 11-1, and had to be brow-beaten economically by Geo. Washington into [STRIKE]submitting to the new power structure[/STRIKE] joining the new union. Hardly a we the people situation. So, given the lies and the nature of the liars, I guess there's not much point in assigning too much emphasis to the word perpetual in the earlier document.

OK, one reply to the topic at hand, so here is where we are:

Massachusetts nominated, not seconded.
California nominated, not seconded.

Any other discussion on decession or the first State we should decede?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

(chuckle) I wonder. If we did this right, I wonder if we could get the rest of the union to kick out Virginia?

Wondering what the mechanism would be for " decessioning " .

I see the mechanism as defacto separation resulting from the decessioning states " adjourning" - resulting in the absence of quorum. The "undecided" remaining can continue down their path towards irrelevancy.

Mexico would be eager to assist us with the Kalifornia problem. Mexico justly deserves the formal return of THEIR de facto bankrupt - not so "Golden State". That little fiscal/social problem solved.

As a strong supporter of the Texas "secession" / INDEPENDENCE movement - I would probably be inclined towards declaring the " United States of America" beyond repair. Formally re-establish the Republic of Texas.

Texas might propose the formation of a mutual defense alliance treaty to be designated (appropriately enough) " AFTER " (American Federation Treaty for Economic Restoration) with any free sovereign states not wishing to cling to the defunct, bankrupt, and now politically fractured alliance once headquartered in Washington, D.C.

EYE 95, you could move your family back to Alabama - or even consider becoming a Texan for that matter.

Something similar to this political model is in store for the U.S.A. due to the natural progressive entrophy resulting from the de facto suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the resulting political disentegration of the U.S. of A.

In other words - I see the "decessionist movement" as essentially a " condemnation process " wherein wise inhabitants vacate the premises.

eye95 said:

OK, one reply to the topic at hand, so here is where we are:

Massachusetts nominated, not seconded.
California nominated, not seconded.

Any other discussion on decession or the first State we should decede?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I nominate OHIO !!

The state name sounds like a guy was zipping up his fly when someone comes by .... OOOOOh-----HI----OOOOOh

Or any state that starts and end with a vowel .... hard to trust those states IMO

It is now fashionable for an avowed Marxist who has himself affirmed that he was born in Kenya prior to his decision to acquire residency in the White House. ( You may notice I did not refer to O-Blah-Blah as "President" because I tire of having to use the term "de facto" constantly.)

What more needs to occur before we realize the great experiment has failed ?

Those of us who do not wish for their children to live in a Marxist collective need to start doing some serious soul searching.

"Decession" is an interesting term - sort of like "disassociation", " Distancing ".

I envision an entirely new geo-political construct comprised of "fly-over" country from the Canadian border South to the Southernmost tip of South America perhaps. Drop the "united ", and open our minds to the "associated" states of America. " United" hasn't worked out too well.

Kind of like the difference between "family", and " friends"- the latter offering some choice in the matter.

Huge conglomerations of states purporting to be "Unions", "United States", and " Great Britain " and so forth are concepts of by-gone eras.

I am not sure what path the Mountain, Midwestern, and Southern states will choose, but Texas is already actively working on a model beyond independence. Many Texans see the Lone Star Republic as the catalyst for opening up a new era of inter-American alliance, and co-operation long thought impossible within the U.S. A.'s " Manifest Destiny" construct.

It is time for us to start thinking outside the box. You never accomplish any goal by starting from the premise that you must have a concrete plan from A-Z to deal with every conceivable contingency. No, consider your options, choose the best option, and proceed with a committment to that course and work out the details as they present.

Citizen said:

That makes sense in one light. For example, Jefferson's letter to (Madison?) wherein he discusses the idea that since the earth belongs to the living, no generation can bind a later generation, thus there should be a new constitution every twenty years or so. So, how could a confederation really be forever?

In another light, however, what would be the point of using the word perpetual? Its a bit tautalogical to say it will last until it ends. Everything lasts until it ends.

Of course, the whole thing was thunk up by politicians, so why trust anything they said? Their next document, the constitution, starts out with a galloping, runaway lie--we the people. Even a cursory glance into the history of the ratification period shows lots and lots of people were opposed to the constitution. The Federalists had to do an end-run around the people and set up ratification conventions in some states. Rhode Island, the only state to submit the constitution to a full referendum, rejected the constitution by 11-1, and had to be brow-beaten economically by Geo. Washington into [STRIKE]submitting to the new power structure[/STRIKE] joining the new union. Hardly a we the people situation. So, given the lies and the nature of the liars, I guess there's not much point in assigning too much emphasis to the word perpetual in the earlier document.

Click to expand...

The crux of the matter right there in bold....

Lysander does a great job in No Treason #1 destroying the We The People (or government by consent), I think one of his lines was that government claiming to govern by consent has been more despotic than any other government.

eye95 said:

OK, one reply to the topic at hand, so here is where we are:

Massachusetts nominated, not seconded.
California nominated, not seconded.

Any other discussion on decession or the first State we should decede?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Seems like you are talking more "discharge" since the states were "admitted"... ? I guess as long as it is mutual, it wouldn't be a problem.

Article IV
<snip>

Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Click to expand...