Then as stated before, the state is under no legal statute to remain a state of the United States. They can through majority vote succeed.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
So wait, you're telling me 3 years after the civil war, a court says they never had a right too?
They didn't unilaterally decide to leave, the northern states weren't abiding by the constitution. They absolutely had a right to leave.
It's funny that you think Northern troops weren't racist, or that the war was fought because the North wanted to free slaves.
If the South was allowed to leave it would've weakened the remaining members of the US, that in a nutshell is why the civil war was fought.
Most of the monuments were erected while the soldiers that actually fought on both sides were still alive, the Union soldiers still alive didn't have a problem with them, what makes you think you're opinion matters more than theirs?
The people erecting them did it to honor their dead, dipshit. They didn't do it to scare black people.
Nazis weren't Americans, they weren't our brothers, neighbors and family. They wanted world domination, the south just wanted to be left alone.
What the hell does local law enforcement enforcing federal law have to do with secession?
If Kentucky tried to secede, the Kentucky State Police would be under no obligation to stop the people. The federal government and it's army might have something to say about it though.
No apology necessary. I haven't read through this whole thread today, but I haven't noticed a lot of hostility. I didn't vote for Trump because he's not a conservative and he shows that routinely, but he's done some good things. I hope you're right this is a short term loss, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats end up coming victorious out of this if they stay out of their own way, which I'm not sure they can do.
Dem's don't do mid-term elections.
Unless you're talking 2020. If Trump is the nominee in 2020, I'd predict a Dem win as of today as long as they didn't run Hillary again.
Then they can succeed according to your position here, Under absolutely no obligation to enforce federal law including non succession laws if any exist.
If you really want to stop these people, stay at home. I'm serious. Ignore them. Don't give them any attention. The KKK and other white supremacy groups were essentially exterminated from doing anything meaningful. Now, after this weekend they have some momentum. When they show up to Lexington the people protesting them are actually keeping them alive. White supremacy is an idea that is wildly unpopular. We don't need to give them the time of day or a platform to spread their message besides their marches and rallies.
Not settled? Well, 150 year old case precedent establishing the law of the land says otherwise.
Not to mention the fact that this conclusion comports with the well-reasoned legal opinion of a great lawyer, and arguably our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln.
Right now, I don't think the Dems know their ass from their elbow. If they were smart Trump would've been the perfect scenario for them. I think it's possible they panic and end up moving so far to the left they'll struggle winning elections.
Its not local law enforcement that would prevent secession. Are you serious? The federal government would step in, not local police. Your argument could not be further from being based in reality. You're comparing apples to automobiles.
So you think it's fine that if an illegal alien is arrested on something, and once in jail it's realized the Feds have a retainer notice on him, in your mind the police shouldn't notify ICE?
What other federal crimes can local police ignore and not notify the Feds?
They cannot once the vote and move has been made. They would be no longer be under constitutional law. The US would probably be in violation of international law if they attacked the state.
Leaving aside the issue as to whether your position on immigration is correct or incorrect, how is it a conservative position? I will grant that your position on free trade can be deemed conservative, although there are many prominent conservatives like Buchanan who argue for less of it and many liberals like Hillary Clinton who favor more of it. As far as immigration is concerned, there are certainly many GOP congressmen and commentators who advocate for increased immigration, but they are still the minority, which is why amnesty (to name one example) cannot go through. There are virtually NO Democrats who are opposed to any type of immigration restriction and some go so far to actually advocate for essentially unlimited immigration.
There certainly was a time when the Left was skeptical of increased immigration, but that day is long gone, as labor issues now take a back seat to SJW issues and identity politics and importing votes. And there is no point in distinguishing between religion based restrictions on immigration and general restrictions in terms of a left vs. right analysis. In either case, opposition, whether right or wrong, comes from the Right and advocacy comes from the Left.
Yes, that is absolutely legally okay. Police can ignore any federal crimes they like, and are allowed to use discretion when applying the law. You seem to be getting confused, the law doesn't care about what you think is right. The law only cares about the letter of the law. And that states that the federal government can not dictate how local law enforcement allocates their time and resources. There is a very good reason things like jurisdiction exist.
It's usually the left side of the aisle that promotes unfettered immigration into the country, so I don't think that makes Kasich more 'conservative' than Trump. I will give you the free trade one though. You need more examples than that, for you to prove that Kasich is more conservative than Trump.
Take a step back, do you truly believe that the Constitution wouldve been approved, or for that matter the revolutionary war would've been fought if the the members thought they were going into a Union they could never get out of? Think about that for a minute, would you agree to that?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Its conservative because I consider conservative to partially be holding onto (conserving) the ideals that have made our country great. I consider taking immigrants to be one of the founding ideals of our country that have added to our country's success.
Open borders are insane and defeat the purpose of having a state at all. Controlled and legal immigration is way to have a net positive on the country as a whole by picking and choosing the best from those who want to come to our great country.
And no I have no connection to that POS. Nor do I have any connections to Clay Shrout, who lived in my neighborhood and the same neighborhood I still live in, and the same HS I attended.
WTF are you talking about? How many people in Ohio kill and murder?
I made a joke in reply to a joke about the guy being from Ohio and you're getting bent out of shape? Are you sure it isn't past your bedtime?
Did you read the above or do you just ignore what is laid out in ignorance because you can't even accept the possibility (fact) that your view of things could be wrong? Yes you do ignore facts. Tootle Pip!
Lol the dems are gonna run Hillary, Maxine or Bernie in 2020. Trump would crush all three of them.
The dems did not learn from huge defeats this past election. They have no agenda, unless crying about Russia and nazi boogeymen is called an agenda.
Uhh dude, the Nazi's arent "boogeymen". They were literally marching in Charlotte. Thats the element we all need to disavow loudly or the party will suffer.
That's exactly what Trump proposed, illegal immigration is none of what you just posted.
I wasn't asked what I think should happen. I was asked what local police should HAVE to do. Of course local police should report illegal immigrants if they are caught breaking the law. That doesn't change the fact that the law of the land says they are under no obligation to do so. Rules and laws matter. You can't ignore one law to force local police to enforce another.
Trump campaigned specifically on banning all Muslim immigrants. He wasn't talking about illegal muslim immigration. He was talking about shutting down legal muslim immigration. And I consider it completely un-American to do such. Thankfully he didn't follow through. During the primaries how was I to know whether he would or not though.
As the saying goes, everybody has a right to their own opinion, but you don’t have a right to your own facts. The Supreme Court, not you or I, interprets the law – and in particular the Constitution. Unless the Constitution is changed, a state does not have, and has never had, the right to succeed – nor can a state be expelled. That’s a fact.
Why do we need to disavow it? They don't represent me or what I believe. Why do we have to take ownership of their ignorance?
We think they're despicable, but the law says they have a right to protest, do you agree?
Hold it here. Was the American Revolution legal or illegal since the British wouldn't recognize our right to secession except through force?
You can't have it both ways.
