Possible Montana Secession?

[mijopaalmc]

Well, it looks like if the SCOTUS upholds the DC ban on the carrying of handguns by private individuals in D.C v. Heller (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller) Montana may try to "secede" from the United States (or at least terminate its statehood).

The Montana Secretary of State justifies the action thusly (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage):

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

However the Compact With the United States (http://leg.mt.gov/css/mtcode_const/const.asp) on which the Secretary of State appears to basing his decision:

All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676), as amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22, 1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.(emphasis added)

Furthermore, the Enabling Act (http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/State/enabling.htm) to which the Compact refers seems mainly to establish the conditions to the states' entrance in to the Union and says very little, if anything, is said about the Act being a contract, let alone terms which, if violated by the federal government, would lead to the dissolution of the contract between the states and the federal government.

I was there fore wondering if someone who knows more about the law that I would be able to shed some light on the contract-law interpretation of the Enabling Act and the legality of Montana's possible termination of said contract given the statements in the Compact.

[Darth Rotor]

If they secede, Canada will doubtless gobble them up!

Won't someone think of the children?

DR

[mijopaalmc]

If they secede, Canada will doubtless gobble them up!

Won't someone think of the children?

DR

Actually, from what I have heard, the "secession" would just be a termination of Montana's statehood; it would remain a US territory.

[madurobob]

I might be moving to Montana soon...

[mijopaalmc]

I might be moving to Montana soon...

Why? You would still most likely be subject to the laws of the US but with fewer privileges than those afforded to citizens of the US.

[Garrette]

Actually, from what I have heard, the "secession" would just be a termination of Montana's statehood; it would remain a US territory.Neato. Set the right precedent and the US could transform into a franchise instead of a country.

[Darth Rotor]

Neato. Set the right precedent and the US could transform into a franchise instead of a country.
Awaiting Jerome's arrival in three . . . two . . . one . . .

DR

[madurobob]

Why? You would still most likely be subject to the laws of the US but with fewer privileges than those afforded to citizen of the US.
Why? To become a dental floss tycoon (http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/Over-Nite_Sensation.html#Montana)!

I'm sorry - I was interjecting a little Zappa to the discussion. It may not be appropriate.. but is Zappa ever appropriate?

[mijopaalmc]

Why? To become a dental floss tycoon (http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/Over-Nite_Sensation.html#Montana)!

I'm sorry - I was interjecting a little Zappa to the discussion. It may not be appropriate.. but is Zappa ever appropriate?

Sorry, I took you seriously.:blush::p

[madurobob]

Neato. Set the right precedent and the US could transform into a franchise instead of a country.

Hmmm... so we'd have a more loosely aligned group of individual states with more sovereignty at the state level and an overlay of federal rules and bureaucracy. You could almost like a confederacy...

Nah, I don' think they even know what grits are in Montana.

[Rob Lister]

This is just silly.

[dakotajudo]

Part of Montana has already seceded. At least, that's one way to look at it.

http://www.republicoflakotah.com/map.html

[godless dave]

It doesn't make sense even if you buy the Montana Secretary of State's premises. Montana is free to have a state constitution that provides more rights for individual citizens than the federal government; this court case would not interfere with that.

[mijopaalmc]

It doesn't make sense even if you buy the Montana Secretary of State's premises. Montana is free to have a state constitution that provides more rights for individual citizens than the federal government; this court case would not interfere with that.

Except that a stare decesis ruling (I think that is the correct legal terminology) in D.C. v Heller would allow federal legislation to be enforced at the local level, leading to a violation of Montana State Constitution should similar federal legislation ever be enforced in Montana.

[shuize]

It doesn't make sense even if you buy the Montana Secretary of State's premises. Montana is free to have a state constitution that provides more rights for individual citizens than the federal government; this court case would not interfere with that.


This is correct.

Except that a stare decesis ruling (I think that is the correct legal terminology) in D.C. v Heller would allow federal legislation to be enforced at the local level, leading to a violation of Montana State Constitution should similar federal legislation ever be enforced in Montana.


This is not.

[TragicMonkey]

You know, I dimly recall that some states tried secession once. I don't think it worked out too well for them, regardless of the legal cases they thought they could make about it.

[godless dave]

Actually now I see Mijo's point. If the federal government were to pass a nationwide law banning handguns (which wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future, but is theoretically possible), and if SCOTUS goes through, then the federal law would probably trump any rights granted by the Montana state constitution.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually now I see Mijo's point. If the federal government were to pass a nationwide law banning handguns (which wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future, but is theoretically possible), and if SCOTUS goes through, then the federal law would probably trump any rights granted by the Montana state constitution.

That is what some refer to as creeping federalism, and others in much harsher terms.

Note the flag of Virginia.

DR

[mijopaalmc]

Actually now I see Mijo's point. If the federal government were to pass a nationwide law banning handguns (which wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future, but is theoretically possible), and if SCOTUS goes through, then the federal law would probably trump any rights granted by the Montana state constitution.

And the Montana Secretary of State (along with some Montana State lawmakers) reasons that this would violate the contract set forth by the Compact in Article I of the Montana State Constitution, rendering the Enabling Act of 1889 null and void (at least for Montana) and terminating Montana's statehood.

For the record, I do not agree with the reasoning in the above paragraph; I think it is shaky at best because the the Enabling Act of 1889 seem to set forth only the responsibility of the constitutional conventions of the nascent states to the federal government and not vice versa. I also think that it is a bit dubious to assume that federal legislation is a contract when it does not explicitly call itself a contract. It may be a contract in the sense of social contract theory but it may not be a contract under the law.

[TragicMonkey]

Note the flag of Virginia.

A woman with a bare boob standing on the corpse of a man she murdered. Best flag ever.

[Apathia]

Won't someone think of the children?DR

Yes. Get Hannah a handgun!

[mijopaalmc]

I guess what the Montana Secretary of State's argument boils down to the assumption that anything that has offer (e.g., statehood), consideration (e.g., the physical territory of the state), and acceptance (e.g., the adoption of the US Constitution at the constitutional convention) is a contract. It is true that a contract is defined as having offer, consideration, and acceptance, to be a contract, but it is not clear (at least to me) if a contract is the only thing that can have offer, consideration, and acceptance.

[Travis]

I thought the thread title was Possible Montana Sex Session which would have been about something much different.

So if Montana secedes and declares itself independent then the US would have just lost a bunch of doomsday cults, white supremacists and barking mad militias. If we could just get Britney Spears to move there the US could get rid of a lot very annoying things in one stroke.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I thought this was a thread about Hannah Montana leaving the country.

I am disappointed. :(

[Travis]

I thought this was a thread about Hannah Montana leaving the country.

I am disappointed. :(

Even her leaving the country would not insulate us from the corporate created Miley Cyrus juggernaut.

[Madalch]

Okay, so we take a little bit of Montana, mix it with water, shake it, dilute and shake repeatedly- what is this supposed to cure?

Oh, wait- I was thinking succussion.

[dudalb]

I thought the thread title was Possible Montana Sex Session which would have been about something much different.

So if Montana secedes and declares itself independent then the US would have just lost a bunch of doomsday cults, white supremacists and barking mad militias. If we could just get Britney Spears to move there the US could get rid of a lot very annoying things in one stroke.

You are confusing Montana with Texas.

[dudalb]

Even her leaving the country would not insulate us from the corporate created Miley Cyrus juggernaut.


Hey at least the Miley Cyrus juggernaut is fairly benign,unlike the trainwrecks that Lohan and Spears are providing.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Awaiting Jerome's arrival in three . . . two . . . one . . .

DR

:D

[Travis]

Hey at least the Miley Cyrus juggernaut is fairly benign,unlike the trainwrecks that Lohan and Spears are providing.

Yes....so far.

What really stinks is that a train wreck is almost impossible to not look at.

[Tumblehome]

If they secede, Canada will doubtless gobble them up!

Won't someone think of the children?


Once in a while, usually when cattle prices are low, some Alberta ranchers make noise about wanting their province to join the States. That would make for an interesting border.

[Kopji]

Heh. I suspect that the Blackfeet tribes would welcome the opportunity to revisit some old treaties.

[mijopaalmc]

Here's how someone described the validity of the "secession" to me:

In order to have a contract you MUST HAVE offer, consideration, and acceptance. Montana had all these things, therefore the compact with the United States is a valid contract. If the United States were to alter their rulings so that the Montana Constitution is now repugnant to the United States Constitution it would be a case of breach of "conditions subsequent." This is a rare legal device whereby a party is in breach of a contract and the unbreaching party is released from the contract due to a change in the breaching party's position making them unable to fulfill the terms of the contract. If I was hired as a licensed surgeon and after a period of time was no longer licensed then I would be breaching a condition subsequent and the entity who hired me would no longer be bound by the contract.

Does this make sense?

[shuize]

Does this make sense?


No, Montana may not sucede. What about the period 1861-1865 do you not understand?

[brodski]

Here's how someone described the validity of the "secession" to me:



Does this make sense?

no, just because something has "offer, consideration, and acceptance." does not make it a contract. That guy may have well have said that "in order to be a normal healthy dog you MUST HAVE four paws a head and a tail, tiddles the kitten has all three, therefore tiddles the kitten is a dog".

Constitutions set legal frameworks, contracts work within legal frameworks, contracts also require the agreement of all parties bind to said contract, at which point do citizens of the US or Montana explicitly agree to the terms of the "contract"?

[mijopaalmc]

no, just because something has "offer, consideration, and acceptance." does not make it a contract. That guy may have well have said that "in order to be a normal healthy dog you MUST HAVE four paws a head and a tail, tiddles the kitten has all three, therefore tiddles the kitten is a dog".

Constitutions set legal frameworks, contracts work within legal frameworks, contracts also require the agreement of all parties bind to said contract, at which point do citizens of the US or Montana explicitly agree to the terms of the "contract"?

The problem here is that a contract is defined as a document that provides offer, acceptance, and consideration. In your example, there are other things that make Tiddles the Kitten a kitten and not a dog; therefore for your example to be meaningful there must be something else that makes a contract a contract that the Compact and the Enabling Act of 1889 from which the Compact derives do not fulfill.

[brodski]

The problem here is that a contract is defined as a document that provides offer, acceptance, and consideration.
If you see that definition, it is a poor definition, or is it making a number of unvoiced assumptions about the context in which the definition is used.

A contract must also exists within a legal framework, constitutions do not they are the legal framework.
A constitution is not a contract in the legal sense, and any attempts to apply contract law to constitutions is foolish in the extreme. I believe this issue came up once in the past is the USA...

[mijopaalmc]

brodski-

The better question is: Does the Enabling Act of 1889 constitute a contract?

It predicated the offer of statehood on the acceptance of the Constitution of the United States whit the consideration of federal land grants.

[brodski]

brodski-

The better question is: Does the Enabling Act of 1889 constitute a contract?


And the answer is "no", it is an act a legislative measure, not a contract (the hint is in the word "act" ;) ), contracts and legalisation are profoundly different legal entities.
An analogy may be drawn between legislation and contract, but to attempt to apply contract law to legislation, as your quote did, is foolish and pointless.

Contract law, whether legislative or common, does not apply to legislation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, Montana may not sucede. What about the period 1861-1865 do you not understand?

Might makes right?

:confused:

[Cuddles]

The problem here is that a contract is defined as a document that provides offer, acceptance, and consideration.

Ah, but it isn't.

In order to have a contract you MUST HAVE offer, consideration, and acceptance. Montana had all these things, therefore the compact with the United States is a valid contract.

If A then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Affirming the consequent. All contracts must have offer, consideration and acceptance, but that does not necessarily mean that all things with offer, consideration and accpetance are contracts.

[mijopaalmc]

Ah, but it isn't.

Then what are the essential characteristics of a contract? Which of these does the Enabling Act not fulfill?

[brodski]

Then what are the essential characteristics of a contract? Which of these does the Enabling Act not fulfill?

The defining nature of a contract is an agreement (yes with offer, consideration and acceptance) which is made under contract law and is subject to contract law.

The enabling act is a piece of legislation, which was made by a legislative process , not an a agreement made under contract law, it is not subject to contract law.
Tiddles is still a kitten.

If the Enabling act were subject to contract law it would not be able to stand for a number of reasons, for instance the fact that it has no time limits and contracts in US law cannot run indefinitely.

Legislation is not subject to contract law. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this...

[SezMe]

Are they going to take Cheney with them? If so, don't let the door hit your bum on the way out.:)

[mijopaalmc]

If the Enabling act were subject to contract law it would not be able to stand for a number of reasons, for instance the fact that it has no time limits and contracts in US law cannot run indefinitely.

Legislation is not subject to contract law. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this...

Not being a lawyer or someone who has systematically studied US law, I am just trying to understand how legislation is not a contract because I lack that modicum of knowledge to make the distinction on my own.

[dudalb]

Might makes right?

:confused:


Why do Libertarians seem to have such a soft spot for the Confederacy?

[mijopaalmc]

Let me clarify:

The argument, as I understand it, is that Article 1 of the Montana Constitution (a.k.a, The Compact With the United States) states:

All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22, 1889, 25 Stat. 676), as amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22, 1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana.

Now the Montana Secretary of State and some Montana lawmakers contend that the Compact constitutes a contact and that a "collective rights" ruling in Heller would cause the Montana Constitution "repugnant to the Constitution of the United States" therefore violating the terms of the Compact as put forth in the Enabling Act of 1889. This would render the Compact null and void and terminate Montana's statehood.

I don't agree with with the less-than-iron-clad reasoning, but I thought it was necessary to clarify that the actual "contract" was considered to be the Compact and not the Enabling Act (which lays out the terms of the Compact), as I implied earlier.

[drkitten]

Not being a lawyer or someone who has systematically studied US law, I am just trying to understand how legislation is not a contract because I lack that modicum of knowledge to make the distinction on my own.

So if you admit that you don't know what the difference is, why are you so adamantly insisting that a legislative act or a constitutional clause is a contract?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why do Libertarians seem to have such a soft spot for the Confederacy?

Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

It was an usurpation of power by force.

My own State had it's legislature imprisoned without cause.

[mijopaalmc]

So if you admit that you don't know what the difference is, why are you so adamantly insisting that a legislative act or a constitutional clause is a contract?

I'm not trying to adamantly insist that a legislative act or constitutional clause is a contract; I'm just trying to figure out what essential elements of a contract are not present in the legislation and the constitution. The truncated definition if a contract that the people with whom I am discussing the matter elsewhere are using is a document contains offer, acceptance, and consideration. The problem (and my disagreement with them) arises from the fact that I don't think that the a document that has the form of a contract is necessarily a contract. However, because of my aforementioned lack of legal education, I do not have the ability to justify this stance off the top of my head, so I am asking for help from people here, while also trying to accurately portray what I consider to be an absurdly framed argument.

[mijopaalmc]

I just had a rather extended discussion with the guy I quoted is post 33. It is now very clear to me that he is not interested in reasoned debate because he insists that the statements "if a document has offer, acceptance, and consideration, it is a contract" and "if a document is contract, it is has offer, acceptance, and consideration" are "functionally equivalent" along with the the syllogisms:

All valid contracts have these elements
The Compact has these elements
The Compact is valid

All of these elements make a valid contract
The compact has all of these elements
The compact is valid
are "functionally equivalent".

[quixotecoyote]

I just had a rather extended discussion with the guy I quoted is post 33. It is now very clear to me that he is not interested in reasoned debate because he insists that the statements "if a document has offer, acceptance, and consideration, it is a contract" and "if a document is contract, it is has offer, acceptance, and consideration" are "functionally equivalent" along with the the syllogisms:


are "functionally equivalent".

While the first statements are not functionally equivalent, your syllogisms are functionally equivalent (or imprecisely worded I suppose)

[JoeEllison]

Legislation is not subject to contract law. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this...

You've made a pretty clear and concise case. It makes perfect sense to me. A legislative act isn't the same as a contract. If it were, I suppose, then maybe Montana could sue the federal government in civil court?

The whole thing is idiotic gun nut paranoia. Maybe they should work on their self-esteem, instead of spending all their time and energy on phallic surrogates.

[mijopaalmc]

While the first statements are not functionally equivalent, your syllogisms are functionally equivalent (or imprecisely worded I suppose)

Except that the middle term is undistributed in the first and distributed in the second (or at least I think that it is correct).

[quixotecoyote]

Except that the middle term is undistributed in the first and distributed in the second (or at least I think that it is correct).

"Has these elements" is the same as "Has all of these elements" within this context.

For example:

X needs A, B, and C
X has them

X needs A, B, and c
X has all of them

[gtc]

Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

It was an usurpation of power by force.

My own State had it's legislature imprisoned without cause.

Missouri?

If so, forming a militia with the aim of attacking the Federal Government in support of the enslavement of fellow human beings seems rather unlike 'without cause' to me.

But I have long given up being surprised about how many people who call themselves libertarians complain about the Federal Government usurping State Government rights during the civil war while ignoring the fact that those State Governments were hell-bent on denying a large chunk of their population the individual right to not be a slave.

[autumn1971]

Doesn't the Compact explicitly require both parties to agree to revoke it? I read "all provisions. . .continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the United States and the people of Montana."
Just because you violate your lease doesn't mean I must consent to the lease's termination.
But I could be wrong.

[mijopaalmc]

"Has these elements" is the same as "Has all of these elements" within this context.

For example:

X needs A, B, and C
X has them

X needs A, B, and c
X has all of them

Nonetheless, the first one at least has an undistributed middle term, much like:

All cats are mammals
A dog is a mammal
A dog is a cat

[BenBurch]

Might makes right?

:confused:

Nope, but might wins.

[quixotecoyote]

Nonetheless, the first one at least has an undistributed middle term, much like:

All cats are mammals
A dog is a mammal
A dog is a cat


I stand corrected.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Missouri?

If so, forming a militia with the aim of attacking the Federal Government in support of the enslavement of fellow human beings seems rather unlike 'without cause' to me.

But I have long given up being surprised about how many people who call themselves libertarians complain about the Federal Government usurping State Government rights during the civil war while ignoring the fact that those State Governments were hell-bent on denying a large chunk of their population the individual right to not be a slave.

The war had much more to due with debt than slavery. You are aware that the North had slaves as well? You are aware that The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebel States?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Missouri?

Maryland. One look at a map and you can see why the Maryland legislature was imprisoned.

[Rob Lister]

Nope, but might wins.

Indeed.

Better put, it should probably read, "Might makes Rights".

[Cuddles]

Then what are the essential characteristics of a contract? Which of these does the Enabling Act not fulfill?

Did you even bother reading my post? As I said, you are just affirming the consequent. Yes, a contract must have offer, consideration and acceptance, but that does not mean that anything possessing those is necessarily a contract.

You also appear to have introduced, apparently out of nowhere, the idea that a contract is defined as having those three properties. At no point have I seen this stated anywhere else. Your sources say that a contract must have them, not that that is the definition of a contract. All apples must grow on an apple tree. Does that mean that "grows on an apple tree" is the definition of an apple?

[mijopaalmc]

Did you even bother reading my post? As I said, you are just affirming the consequent. Yes, a contract must have offer, consideration and acceptance, but that does not mean that anything possessing those is necessarily a contract.

You also appear to have introduced, apparently out of nowhere, the idea that a contract is defined as having those three properties. At no point have I seen this stated anywhere else. Your sources say that a contract must have them, not that that is the definition of a contract. All apples must grow on an apple tree. Does that mean that "grows on an apple tree" is the definition of an apple?

I was just trying the display what I thought was a hidden premise in the other guy's argument, namely that he think s that "must have" means "is defined by". In general, discussions with him tend to be riddled with them. For instance, one of his favorite arguments is that, since science and religion both seek to explain the world around us, science is a religion. What really sums up his whole stance on argumentation for for me is that, when I had an IM discussion with him last night, he told me that he would get more hostile with me if I continued "using logic" to point out that he was affirming the consequent and not distributing his middle term.

[dudalb]

Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

It was an usurpation of power by force.

My own State had it's legislature imprisoned without cause.

There you have it. State Rights are more important then Human Slavery
Thanks for reminding me why,although I have a lot of sympathy for some of their basic ideas like limits on governement, I will not go near the Libertarian movement.

[drkitten]

Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

Certainly it does. Article I, section 8, clause 15 specifically gives Congress the authority to "subdue insurrections" by force.

As soon as South Carolina declared its secession -- and especially after it fired on Federal troops at the Battle of Ft. Sumter --- it was in insurrection.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

False.

Why do Libertarians seem to go out of their way to misinterpret the Constitution?

[dudalb]

False.

Why do Libertarians seem to go out of their way to misinterpret the Constitution?


Because they really do not want the Constitution,they want The Articles Of Confederation back.

[drkitten]

Because they really do not want the Constitution,they want The Articles Of Confederation back.

I think it's broader than that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support their claims under law. So they have to manufacture some. The Constitution is a good place to start, because everyone has heard of it, and no one really knows what their "Constitutional rights" are (or aren't).

It's rather like the woos' "proof" that crystal hugging works through made up references. (Did you that an article in the Lancet proved that if you wear a rose quartz crystal around your neck, you will never get cancer?)

[leadcork]

An additional point: for a "contract" to be valid, the parties must be competent, and the contract must presume the parties had a meeting of the minds. No competency, or no meeting of the minds, means no contract.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Because they really do not want the Constitution,they want The Articles Of Confederation back.

Or, more accurately, the want the Constitution of Libertopia to be in effect.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There you have it. State Rights are more important then Human Slavery
Thanks for reminding me why,although I have a lot of sympathy for some of their basic ideas like limits on governement, I will not go near the Libertarian movement.

Your incomplete knowledge of history is on display.

The Northern slaves were still slaves after the war.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Certainly it does. Article I, section 8, clause 15 specifically gives Congress the authority to "subdue insurrections" by force.

As soon as South Carolina declared its secession -- and especially after it fired on Federal troops at the Battle of Ft. Sumter --- it was in insurrection.

Try learning some history. Comic book and movie knowledge is all you are displaying here.

[gtc]

The war had much more to due with debt than slavery. You are aware that the North had slaves as well? You are aware that The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebel States?

True, but it is my understanding that the border states enacted their own legislation to mirror the proclamation (I am not sure if they were other slave states). I think a federal proclamation was only necessary because the rebel states wouldn't pass their own legislation although I stand to be corrected.

I shall try to read up about Maryland in the war.

[mijopaalmc]

I think that most frustrating part of the Montana Secretary of State's statement is that it seems to be an overly simplistic interpretation of a moderately complex problem. The problem is moderately complex, because, while acts of Congress are generally not considered contracts at least in part because they are valid regardless of the consent of the individuals upon whom they are enacted (if the proper legislative procedure has been followed), the Enabling Act of 1889 has been interpreted by the SCOTUS at least twice to be a contract (see: U.S. v. Rickert (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:8JxgWtOCYNAJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl%3Ffriend%3Dnytimes%26court%3Dus%26vol%3 D188%26invol%3D432+US+v.+Rickert) and State of Montana ex rel Haire v. Rice (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=204&invol=291)). However, in ruling that the Enabling Act was a contract, the SCOTUS has never seen it fit to dissolve the the contract because it has been breached. Thus, Montana's bid for "secession", while it does have some backing in case law in so far as the SCOTUS considers the Enabling Act a contract, is at best legally dubious because there is no precedent that allows the contract to be dissolved if its has been breached.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Your incomplete knowledge of history is on display.

The Northern slaves were still slaves after the war.

Until the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Re: Maryland Legislature:

s a result of the Union Army's heavy presence in the state and the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln, several Maryland state legislators, as well as the mayor and police chief of Baltimore, who supported the secession, were arrested and imprisoned by Union authorities

Gee, during a war. What a surprise.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Try learning some history. Comic book and movie knowledge is all you are displaying here.

Actually, Dr. Kitten is ENTIRELY right. While there were signs that the Union government wanted to provoke the secessionists, they did so in a legal manner.

In any case, once they declared war!!!! ... well, you get the idea.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, Dr. Kitten is ENTIRELY right. While there were signs that the Union government wanted to provoke the secessionists, they did so in a legal manner.

In any case, once they declared war!!!! ... well, you get the idea.

Why was Virginia invaded?

[quixotecoyote]

I think that most frustrating part of the Montana Secretary of State's statement is that it seems to be an overly simplistic interpretation of a moderately complex problem. The problem is moderately complex, because, while acts of Congress are generally not considered contracts at least in part because they are valid regardless of the consent of the individuals upon whom they are enacted (if the proper legislative procedure has been followed), the Enabling Act of 1889 has been interpreted by the SCOTUS at least twice to be a contract (see: U.S. v. Rickert (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:8JxgWtOCYNAJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl%3Ffriend%3Dnytimes%26court%3Dus%26vol%3 D188%26invol%3D432+US+v.+Rickert) and State of Montana ex rel Haire v. Rice (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=204&invol=291)). However, in ruling that the Enabling Act was a contract, the SCOTUS has never seen it fit to dissolve the the contract because it has been breached. Thus, Montana's bid for "secession", while it does have some backing in case law in so far as the SCOTUS considers the Enabling Act a contract, is at best legally dubious because there is no precedent that allows the contract to be dissolved if its has been breached.

Doublecheck your links mijo, I think those say the opposite of what you say they say.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Until the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Ahh, you understand that the slaves in the north were not released!

So, the war was about southern slaves but not northern slaves. :confused:

[KoihimeNakamura]

Beeecause.. and I'm just GUESSING here...

Using this line in the Constutition here

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And after this:


Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

And since the capital is in Richmond...
... one just WONDERS

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ahh, you understand that the slaves in the north were not released!

So, the war was about southern slaves but not northern slaves. :confused:

No. At first it was simply that they secedding, but Lincoln did opt to refuse the Crittenden Compromise
(They however did seccede over the growing encroachment they felt of the federal goverment, especially Lincoln going lol,no to slavery)

As it went on, Lincoln eventually did decide it was more than just preserving the Union:


. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Src: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

However, the Emancipation Proclamation was more of a moral gimmick - it's why that was aimed at the slaveholding states. However, there is plenty of evidence that the border states would have been held to the same standards of requiring passage of the 13-15th amendments weret hey to refuse.

(Side note: The CSA was founded on 'states rights' but Davis also tried to assert the 'federal' branch of the CSA's supremecy many times - caused a lot of internecine squabbling, espically with the NC governor.)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Beeecause.. and I'm just GUESSING here...

Using this line in the Constutition here


And after this:



And since the capital is in Richmond...
... one just WONDERS


Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?


This circumstance seems recently familiar.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?


This circumstance seems recently familiar.

Did you read what I said? It said Confederate forces.

[Spindrift]

Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?


This circumstance seems recently familiar.

Because Virginia seceded in April 1861 and had joined the insurrection.

Doesn't seem in the least recently familiar.

[skeptical]

Virginia and South Carolina are different States.

If South Carolina attacked the US government, why did the US government invade Virginia?


Perhaps because VA seceded from the Union before it was attacked? According to a civil war timeline, VA seceded on April 17th, 1861. As far as I can determine, the first battle that occurred in VA did not take place until June 3, 1861.

http://americancivilwar.com/tl/tl1861.html

So, it appears that well over a month passed between the time VA seceded and the time any military action took place against it, so I don't see what the problem is.

Or do you not consider secession an act of insurrection for which military action is authorized under Article I, Section 8?

[Spindrift]

Why do Libertarians seem to have such a soft spot for the Confederacy?

Especially since states rights contributed to the defeat of the South. They didn't have a strong central government so the Confederate states were always bickering over supplying troops and who would pay for what.

[mijopaalmc]

Doublecheck your links mijo, I think those say the opposite of what you say they say.

That is entirely possible, but I think that I am still correct in my understanding that the Haire decision assumes that the Enabling Act is a contract in order to find the Montana Constitution (or at least the Montana Supreme Court's interpretation thereof) in breach of contract. I did not review the Rickert decision as thoroughly so I might be wrong in my interpretation of it. Any correction would be appreciated.

[ponderingturtle]

Virginia and South Carolina are different States.


So in other words they where not both part of the same nation the CSA? Or when a nation attacks you, you are limited to responding to the districts that attacked?


Wait a minuite why am I bothering to argue with this troll?

[JoeEllison]

So in other words they where not both part of the same nation the CSA? Or when a nation attacks you, you are limited to responding to the districts that attacked?


Wait a minuite why am I bothering to argue with this troll?

I don't know... we don't even have the writer's strike as an excuse anymore.:jaw-dropp

[drkitten]

Why was Virginia invaded?

Because Virginia joined the Confederacy in the aftermath of the Ft. Sumter battle (after Lincoln called for troops to suppress the insurrection). By joining the side of the insurrectionsists, Virginia rendered itself also in insurrection.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Try learning some history. Comic book and movie knowledge is all you are displaying here.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[BenBurch]

I strongly recommend the American Civil War audio course Taught by Gary W. Gallagher from The Teaching Company.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=885&pc=History%20-%20Modern

Yes, it's $250; You have to pay for quality. If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

I'd happily have given you mine, but it was lost when my briefcase was stolen from my car last year.

-Ben

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

Thanks for the tip. Libertarians do like to wallow in historical revisionism.

Arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery is like arguing that World War II was not about Hitler.

[skeptical]

I strongly recommend the American Civil War audio course Taught by Gary W. Gallagher from The Teaching Company.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=885&pc=History%20-%20Modern

Yes, it's $250; You have to pay for quality. If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

I'd happily have given you mine, but it was lost when my briefcase was stolen from my car last year.

-Ben

I also highly recommend anything from the Teaching Company. I have purchased many courses from them and they have all been excellent.

They also run very good sales now and then, so the $250 audio may go on sale for 50-70% off the list price.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I strongly recommend the American Civil War audio course Taught by Gary W. Gallagher from The Teaching Company.

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=885&pc=History%20-%20Modern

Yes, it's $250; You have to pay for quality. If you can listen to this all the way through a couple of times and think that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, I'd love to hear your thoughts at that time.

I'd happily have given you mine, but it was lost when my briefcase was stolen from my car last year.

-Ben


I do appreciate the link for the info. I choose not to pay for propaganda. I would listen for free, just not pay.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Back to the OP, what's the issue here? Montana's constitution guarantees the individual right to bear arms. If the U.S. constitution does not, how does that violate Montana's constitution in any way? It seems the ruling in and of itself would not be grounds for secession (assuming Montana's premise is valid), only attempts to pass a federal ban on individual gun ownership, which would itself be constitutionally questionable.

Since Montana has one of the highest ratios of federal money received to taxes collected, I say let them go anyway.

[KoihimeNakamura]

AoS: Technically speaking, if the federal ban is constutional, Montana's constutition does not have the authority to say they're wrong.

However, you can get gay marriage ins ome states and it's not valid in others even with full faith and credit.. so I really don't know how that'd work.

[skeptical]

I do appreciate the link for the info. I choose not to pay for propaganda. I would listen for free, just not pay.

Just curious, are you saying:

1) Anything from the teaching company is propaganda?
Or
2) Anything from the listed author is propaganda?
Or
3) Anything that doesn't agree with your opinion on the civil war is propaganda?

[skeptical]

AoS: Technically speaking, if the federal ban is constutional, Montana's constutition does not have the authority to say they're wrong.

True, but the issue is if the US constitution gives congress the power to ban in the first place. Their powers under the commerce clause are broad, but there are some, albeit fuzzy, limits.

I should also note that the 2nd amendment itself could be repealed, and this, standing alone, would have no effect on a states' rights to ALLOW guns, it would merely remove a federal limit to a states' rights to RESTRICT guns. Additional legislation would have to be enacted to restrict guns at the federal leve.


However, you can get gay marriage ins ome states and it's not valid in others even with full faith and credit.. so I really don't know how that'd work.

That's really a more complex issue. The DOMA purports to restrict the FF&C so that states do not have to honor same sex marriage from other states. There is some question if the DOMA is constitutional or not. With the current SCOTUS, it probably would pass muster. Even a EP argument is not likely to work IMO with the current court composition.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just curious, are you saying:

1) Anything from the teaching company is propaganda?
Or
2) Anything from the listed author is propaganda?
Or
3) Anything that doesn't agree with your opinion on the civil war is propaganda?

None of the above. He stated that if I listen to the lecture I would think that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. This demonstrates that the lecture has the purpose of propagandizing towards this conclusion.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It is by large and far the main cause. Just not the entire cause. Therefore, it's not propaganda. (IIRC, Lincoln didn't enter it to end slavery, but that ist he main reason teh Southern states left. However, right now, I'm reading about the 1760-1790 area of American Politics. SOoo.)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is by large and far the main cause. Just not the entire cause. Therefore, it's not propaganda. (IIRC, Lincoln didn't enter it to end slavery, but that ist he main reason teh Southern states left. However, right now, I'm reading about the 1760-1790 area of American Politics. SOoo.)

You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.

[mijopaalmc]

You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.

Why is it so imprtant that the Civil War (ooops, I'm sorry, the War Between the States:rolleyes:) be about other things than slavery?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Why would text books aroudn now be wrong? Sorry, Jerome. You're just wrong here. While there is an interesting school of thought that sectional divisions led to it as well, the primary dispute was slavery (and slaves rights - espically the ability to nullify some federal decisions).

However the primary cause IS slavery.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why is it so imprtant that the Civil War (ooops, I'm sorry, the War Between the States:rolleyes:) be about other things than slavery?

Because slavery was on its death bed either way.

The war was about the usurpation of power from sovereign States.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why would text books aroudn now be wrong? Sorry, Jerome. You're just wrong here. While there is an interesting school of thought that sectional divisions led to it as well, the primary dispute was slavery (and slaves rights - espically the ability to nullify some federal decisions).

However the primary cause IS slavery.


So, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because they don't disagree? Unless you can come up with specific examples (I will also note there are reasons why eyewitness testimony isn't always corrrect)

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because slavery was on its death bed either way.

The war was about the usurpation of power from sovereign States.

Well, no. The South was not getting what they wanted becuase the other states formed a majority voting against them.

[gtc]

Your complaint makes no sense. Why would you reject a source just because it was convincing; without knowing whether it was true or not?

[skeptical]

None of the above. He stated that if I listen to the lecture I would think that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. This demonstrates that the lecture has the purpose of propagandizing towards this conclusion.

Ummm, no. First of all, I have many experiences with the teaching company courses, and none of them are what I would consider "propaganda". Many of them are better than some University courses I have taken.

Second, the poster merely expressed an opinion that they thought you would be convinced by it. Perhaps they felt that the information is so well presented and factually based you would change your mind. Their opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual content of the course they recommended. For all you know, the course may present many different angles of the slavery question, and it just so happens that the weight of evidence leads to certain conclusions. You don't know, and the poster didn't present nearly enough information for you to make the HUGE jump in reasoning that you have made.

You have made a completely unwarranted assumption about a quality program based on a single offhand comment of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. What their thoughts about what the program would/would not convince you of are completely distinct from the program itself. There is simply no basis in reality for you making the sort of illogical leap you have made from their opinion to your assertion that the course is "propaganda".

What, if anything, do you think this indicates about your willingness to consider new ideas contrary to your current opinions?

[skeptical]

You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.

Primary sources are good, and should of course always be consulted by serious historians. However, there are many reasons not to accept anything written from people living during a momentous event at face value either. Obviously, writers on the North and the South had a tremendous incentive to portray their own side in the best possible light, and many of them did so.

Additionally, assumptions made by authors during the civil war may not have panned out in the light of the broader view that more modern scholars have of the later history. Period writers rarely, if ever, have all the information at their disposal that later period writers have. This is especially true with older time periods when the authors did not have access to modern research facilities and tools.

For any historical events, it is important to have both primary sources AND secondary sources that have the advantage of a broader view of both multiple sources and subsequent events in the broad spectrum of later history.

Your casual acceptance of only primary sources, and equally casual dismissal of later historians I find rather strange unless your argument is that current historians are _ignoring_ primary sources?

[drkitten]

So, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

Here's a hint, Jerome.

The people involved in the events were politicians.

Politicians lie to present their position in the most favorable light.

One of the professional skills that historians develop is the ability to ferret out relevant non-publicized documents, and to cross-riff between all of the relevant documents in order to determine which of the public documents were flat out lies.

So, yes, in short, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

I find it interesting that you wouldn't take Obama's word that it was raining if he came in with a dripping wet umbrella, but you believe any whopper that Jefferson Davis might have spun while in his cups. Well, "interesting" isnt' really the right word. More "pathetic," really.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because they don't disagree? Unless you can come up with specific examples (I will also note there are reasons why eyewitness testimony isn't always corrrect)

How do you know they don't disagree? You are only reading current text books.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your complaint makes no sense. Why would you reject a source just because it was convincing; without knowing whether it was true or not?

I am not completely rejecting the source. I am not going to pay for a source which is purported to have an agenda.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What, if anything, do you think this indicates about your willingness to consider new ideas contrary to your current opinions?

I stated that I am willing to listen to the course. In fact, I generally seek out presentations which hold contrary views. I just am not going to pay for information which is purported to present a conclusion which is incorrect.

[D'rok]

So, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Woohoo! Jerome gives me another opportunity to invent a new fallacy. In addition to your reductio ad orwellum arsenal, you now wield reductio ad huxleyum. Although that one doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe a general fallacy would be better?

reductio ad dystopium

Either way, welcome aboard the failboat, crew = you.

(How's having an internet stalker working out for you? I'm having a blast) :D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Here's a hint, Jerome.

The people involved in the events were politicians.

Politicians lie to present their position in the most favorable light.

One of the professional skills that historians develop is the ability to ferret out relevant non-publicized documents, and to cross-riff between all of the relevant documents in order to determine which of the public documents were flat out lies.

So, yes, in short, the writings when the event occurred by the people involved in the events are wrong and current school text books are correct.

I find it interesting that you wouldn't take Obama's word that it was raining if he came in with a dripping wet umbrella, but you believe any whopper that Jefferson Davis might have spun while in his cups. Well, "interesting" isnt' really the right word. More "pathetic," really.

These are extremely revealing thoughts.

You then would agree with this statement. Current public policies are based upon incorrect characterizations and we will only understand the truth of today in the future when it has been examined by historians and written down in text books.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Woohoo! Jerome gives me another opportunity to invent a new fallacy. In addition to your reductio ad orwellum arsenal, you now wield reductio ad huxleyum. Although that one doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe a general fallacy would be better?

reductio ad dystopium

Either way, welcome aboard the failboat, crew = you.

(How's having an internet stalker working out for you? I'm having a blast) :D


Do you agree with drkitten's assessment?

[D'rok]

Do you agree with drkitten's assessment?

Her (assumption, correct me if that's wrong) assessment about historical perspective? Sure. Do I agree with your implication that contrarians like yourself and Ron Paul can accurately see through the current smokescreen of self-serving political rhetoric to reveal social reality as it really is and can thus know what the future brings?

No.

I've studied more than enough of the various historicisms and futurists to know that, prima facie, you're all fantasists.

Also, drkitten has a track record here as one of the most intelligent and lucid, if snarky, posters. She gets cred up front from me (not unquestioning belief - just initial credibility that demands she be taken seriously). You have some work to do in that regard.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Her (assumption, correct me if that's wrong) assessment about historical perspective?


You agree that writings from a particular time period by the actors themselves is not valid when in disagreement with current text books?

[drkitten]

Current public policies are based upon incorrect characterizations

You mean, incorrect characterizations like "Iraq is buying yellowcake uranium in support of its active WMD program, and therefore must be stopped imnediately"?

Yeah, I'm cool calling that "incorrect." And only in hindsight, as more information came in, did we learn the truth about the actual Iraqi situation. I suspect that another twenty years and two hundred journal articles and we will have a much better idea of what's going on in Iraq today than we have now .

Oddly enough, you're proving my point for me.

[D'rok]

You agree that writings from a particular time period by the actors themselves is not valid when in disagreement with current text books?

Depends. Will I defer to competent historians over political rhetoric from the period in question? Of course. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

Some argue that history as an academic discipline began with Thucydides. His rendering of Pericles' funeral oration is masterful. But even that is rhetoric itself; it reveals more about the politics of the time than it does about actual fact-based events in the declining democratic Athenian empire. If you based your opinion of what Athens actually was from that speech, you would not have accurate knowledge. Since Thucydides, historians have honed their craft.

It seems to me that this is yet one more example of your radical scepticism, which ends up not looking very sceptical at all. Must you re-invent every wheel based on your own musings?

[drkitten]

Although that one doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe a general fallacy would be better?

reductio ad dystopium

I think it's a more general reductio ad fictium; the citation of fictional works as though they described reality. I've seen eutopiae cited in this context as well, where someone points out that a particular course of action must be good because it worked for Batman....

[D'rok]

I think it's a more general reductio ad fictium; the citation of fictional works as though they described reality. I've seen eutopiae cited in this context as well, where someone points out that a particular course of action must be good because it worked for Batman....

Ah, the Batman ontological theory. I think I'll base my reality on Lord of the Rings. I'm dorky that way.

[KoihimeNakamura]

How do you know they don't disagree? You are only reading current text books.

I have read the inaqurual addresses and have some primary sources. I admit haven't read much of the CSA's writings. Well, none, really. I should, I suppose, and probably will later.

Anyway, discussion re the Civil War should be posted elsewhere, and I've started a thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107713

[skeptical]

I stated that I am willing to listen to the course. In fact, I generally seek out presentations which hold contrary views. I just am not going to pay for information which is purported to present a conclusion which is incorrect.

The POINT is, you are basing an assessment of a course on what some unknown person says they think the course will convince you of. You know nothing more about it than that, and you have already decided that it is "propaganda". You are allowing the opinion of someone you don't even know to bias your assessment of information before you have even looked at the information.

Do you not see the problem with this?

ETA: Another problem is, you have appear to have absolute certainty that you are right. If you are not willing to consider that you might be wrong in your current historical assessment, then there is not much point in examining any courses. You must be willing to consider new information, or you will learn nothing.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Another problem is, you have appear to have absolute certainty that you are right.

Did not the offer of the information carry the idea that the presenter was certain he was right?

You are not being consistent in your thoughts or criticisms.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You mean, incorrect characterizations like "Iraq is buying yellowcake uranium in support of its active WMD program, and therefore must be stopped imnediately"?

Yeah, I'm cool calling that "incorrect." And only in hindsight, as more information came in, did we learn the truth about the actual Iraqi situation. I suspect that another twenty years and two hundred journal articles and we will have a much better idea of what's going on in Iraq today than we have now .

Oddly enough, you're proving my point for me.

Equivocation Extraordinary! :cool:


ETA: I was wondering if I put it in italics and gave it a Latin sounding cadence would it carry more weight?

[JoeEllison]

Ah, the Batman ontological theory. I think I'll base my reality on Lord of the Rings. I'm dorky that way.

Don't you mean you're D'roky that way?:D

[D'rok]

Don't you mean you're D'roky that way?:D

Drat! My anagram secret is out. ;)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.

Why don't you just tell us what the causes were, so we can laugh at you.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why don't you just tell us what the causes were, so we can laugh at you.

That does seem the extent of the thinking ability of many.

By the way, who is this "we"? Do you carry a mouse in your pocket?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That does seem the extent of the thinking ability of many.

By the way, who is this "we"? Do you carry a mouse in your pocket?

Libertarians like you have been the source of much laughter and derision over the years on this forum.

Sounds like you don't want to post the cause(s) of the Civil War.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Libertarians like you have been the source of much laughter and derision over the years on this forum.

Symptom of weak minds that have fallen into atrophy.

Sounds like you don't want to post the cause(s) of the Civil War.

I already did.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I already did.

Without even reading it.....

:dl:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Without even reading it.....

:dl:

:dl: :dl: :dl:

:dl: :dl: :dl:

:dl: :dl: :dl:


I did nine! This makes me 9 times as good a thinker as you!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Stop being a child, Jerome. That is, stop moving the goalposts, stop being intellecutally dishonest and above al lelase, stop automatically rejecting anything that doesn't agree with your worldview.

[skeptical]

Did not the offer of the information carry the idea that the presenter was certain he was right?

You are not being consistent in your thoughts or criticisms.

There is a difference between thinking you are right, and being absolutely certain of it. Everyone thinks they are right, the question is whether they are willing to re-evaluate.

Based on a single posters comment that they thought information in a course would convince you of something, an opinion that could have been interpreted in numerous ways, you made the enormous leap of logic that:

1) The course is nothing but propaganda
2) The course is factually wrong

If you can make these statements without having seen the course or its material, the only reasonable conclusion is that you have a certainty in your opinions that is the equivalent of a religious belief and is not based on evidence.

[mijopaalmc]

So, Jerome, do you think that the same principles apply to Montana's "threat" of secession as applied to the South's secession?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Stop being a child, Jerome. That is, stop moving the goalposts, stop being intellecutally dishonest and above al lelase, stop automatically rejecting anything that doesn't agree with your worldview.

Laughing dogs are not against my world-view.


Every time I see them it is a sure sign that reasoned thought has caused a mental regression to the sand-box from which group acceptance is the only solace a mind which is fully contorted can find.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, Jerome, do you think that the same principles apply to Montana's "threat" of secession as applied to the South's secession?

To which principles are you referring?

[mijopaalmc]

To which principles are you referring?

Sorry for the poorly worded question.

What I meant to ask was: In your eyes, what forms the legal basis for the United States federal government to recognize the secession of any of the states as legitimate?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Laughing dogs are not against my world-view.


Every time I see them it is a sure sign that reasoned thought has caused a mental regression to the sand-box from which group acceptance is the only solace a mind which is fully contorted can find.

Translation: I refuse to believe that someone could find it so hilariously wrong.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sorry for the poorly worded question.

What I meant to ask was: In your eyes, what forms the legal basis for the United States federal government to recognize the secession of any of the states as legitimate?

The Federal government does not have to recognize a sovereign State's secession from the union.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Translation: I refuse to believe that someone could find it so hilariously wrong.

Did you not read what the dog was prefaced with? : "Without even reading it....."

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did you not read what the dog was prefaced with? : "Without even reading it....."

Because we've learned over time that the "evidence" posted by Libertarians is not even worth reading. Except for a laugh. Ergo, I knew I could laugh at it, without even wasting my time reading it.

Once more, as a reminder...

:dl:

[mijopaalmc]

The Federal government does not have to recognize a sovereign State's secession from the union.

But the problem here is that, with the exception of the land that belonged to the original Thirteen Colonies that was incorporated into the states as they ratified the Constitution, all of the land that became the states of the United States first belonged to the federal government by treaty with other foreign powers. It was then organized by organic act and granted statehood by enabling act, but at no time did the land itself leave the ownership of the federal government. Thus, a state government that declares itself its own sovereign nation "becomes" a nation that is illegally "occupying" the sovereign territory of the United States and is therefore subject to invasion by the United States in order to regain its sovereign territory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because we've learned over time that the "evidence" posted by Libertarians is not even worth reading. Except for a laugh. Ergo, I knew I could laugh at it, without even wasting my time reading it.

Once more, as a reminder...

:dl:

I am smarter than you because I can make more laughing dogs.

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:

:dl:



Oh and by the way: Every time I see them it is a sure sign that reasoned thought has caused a mental regression to the sand-box from which group acceptance is the only solace a mind which is fully contorted can find.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But the problem here is that, with the exception of the land that belonged to the original Thirteen Colonies that was incorporated into the states as they ratified the Constitution, all of the land that became the states of the United States first belonged to the federal government by treaty with other foreign powers. It was then organized by organic act and granted statehood by enabling act, but at no time did the land itself leave the ownership of the federal government. Thus, a state government that declares itself its own sovereign nation "becomes" a nation that is illegally "occupying" the sovereign territory of the United States and is therefore subject to invasion by the United States in order to regain its sovereign territory.


Interesting. I had not thought about that. I believe you are correct. Thanks.

[littlehulkster]

I, for one, eagerly await the chance to move to Montana where I can form an insurgency group named after the local high school mascot with my buddy Charlie Sheen and a ragtag group of local kids and resist the brutal Canadian army invasion.