Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Agreed. Not sure why you are arguing this point IB.

You live in a one-horse town where LE runs a burglary ring. One of the burglars breaks into your home and steals your TV set. The burglar sells your TV to a pawn shop. You report the TV stolen and give the police all of the necessary details to identify the TV set. The police locate your TV at the pawn shop, but then the police tell you the set no longer belongs to you because the pawn shop has a record showing where they paid money to purchase the set. The fact that you have no systemic recourse doesn't make the police decision legitimate.

This is exactly the issue in the instance of West Virginia becoming a state. The whole fraudulent process violated Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution.

1) The individuals who applied for statehood in West Virginia were not duly elected representatives of the people who lived in West Virginia.

2) There is extant evidence armed men were posted at the polls to suppress the vote against independent statehood.

3) There is extant evidence non-residents cast hundreds of votes for independent statehood.

4) The Supreme Court that made the final decision was also culpable because it was stacked by the same Congress which backed the perpetrated frauds listed at 1– 3. (In 1866, Congress reduced the number of SC justices from ten to seven to preclude any possibility President Johnson might appoint a justice who might rule against the Radical Republicans. Hence, the court itself was complicit in the unconstitutional act.)


Finally, ExNYer cited this wiki article but did not cite this quote: "the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's creation"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That is your opinion only and it is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]

What Abe Lincoln THOUGHT does NOT determine whether or not he violated the constitution - even if he was deliberately trying to. Even if he announced to the whole world that he was actually trying to violate the constitution.

His action would be unconstitutional only if he is sued and a court rules his action was unconstitutional.

That's the law. Sorry.Just like Obamacare. No matter how much you hate it, it is CONSTITUTIONAL. At least until another Supreme Court overrules its previous holding. That's why we have a court to decide these things for us.


More unproven allegations by the Confederate sympathizer.

It is truly curious how you keep comparing Odumbocare to the constitutional fraud perpetrated against the state of Virginia. BTW, the wiki article you improperly says this: "the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's creation"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

[Yssup Rider]

YOU are a fucking lunatic. OK, you're right. The Earth IS flat!

[TheWanderer]

As soon as Texas feels the bite of forming and paying for their own military, along with any of these other backwoods states, they may be singing a different tune.
Priced a fully stocked aircraft carrier lately?
Get ready for a name change.....Mexas...I like the sound of that.
Oh, a new govenor too. Don't worry, the new government will keep the death penalty.
They use it rather freely.

[Roothead]

gee.... isn't Texas one of the states with the largest contingent of military installations? So, every year the feds inject billions of moola into the state and employ how many thousands of loyal, good-hearted Texans in the process.....? Now, let's discuss the inter-related nature of the the energy industry, the airline industry and the military industrial complex,all here in my adopted home state..... hmmm... me thinks the only folks seceding will be a few wing-nuts and their less-than bright acolytes

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It is truly curious how you keep comparing Odumbocare to the constitutional fraud perpetrated against the state of Virginia. BTW, the wiki article you improperly says this: "the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's creation"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

You can use all the large fonts you want. You are STILL ignorant of the law and how it is interpreted and applied.

I clearly wrote above that the SCt. said that the legislature did not have a case for FRAUD because the governor had acted within his discretion. So, the SCt never had to address the issue of constitutionality. I never said that they did.

But, if they DID have to, Article 4, Section 3 would not apply to Virginia, which was no longer a state. Got that?

Article 4, Section 3, prevents an EXISTING state from being carved up by the federal government or by other states without its consent. Virginia, but its own declaration, was no longer a state. You hypocritical Confederate sympathizers cannot have it both ways. You cannot leave the United States and then invoke the protections of the US Constitution to prevent the federal government from interfering with the sovereignty of a REAL state. Got that, Jeb?

But as dumb as that part is, this assertion is even dumber:

4) The Supreme Court that made the final decision was also culpable because it was stacked by the same Congress which backed the perpetrated frauds listed at 1– 3. (In 1866, Congress reduced the number of SC justices from ten to seven to preclude any possibility President Johnson might appoint a justice who might rule against the Radical Republicans. Hence, the court itself was complicit in the unconstitutional act.)

Believe it or not, Johnny Reb, there is nothing wrong with that.

Congress gets to decide the size of the Supreme Court (see Article III, Section 1). THAT actually IS constitutional. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says there must be 9 justices. Congress can even prevent the Supreme Ct from reviewing certain types of cases by regulating the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)

So, the Supreme Court wasn't "culpable" or "complicit" in anything. They had NO control over it. It was entirely the work of Congress, which wanted the post-Civil Warreforms of the Radical Republicans to be protected from being ruled unconstitutional by a Supreme Court stacked with Confederate sympathizers by Pres. Johnson. So they outsmarted him.

And the beauty of this is -THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

You seem to be confused about the word "constituional". It does NOT mean "fair" or "good" or "righteous". It only means that a law does not violate the Constitution.

At one time, counting a black man as 3/5ths of a person was "constitutional". It certainly wasn't good or righteous, but it WAS written right into the Constitution.

So, no, you still fail.

Only in your Confederate sympathizer OPINION was the rejoining of West VA into the Union unconstitutional.

You also have a bug up your ass about "extant evidence" of fraud and wrongdoing.

Perhaps you can mention the extant evidence of gross violations of the civil rights of blacks by southern whites who deprived blacks of the vote for nearly a century AFTER the Civil War ended. How many fraudulent laws were enacted by Congress because Dixiecrats had stacked the deck in Congress because blacks could not vote?

Your whole Confederacy was an enormous fraud designed to steal peoples lives. You are all hypocrites to split hairs about the whether the formation of West Virginia was proper.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You can use all the large fonts you want. You are STILL ignorant of the law and how it is interpreted and applied.

I clearly wrote above that the SCt. said that the legislature did not have a case for FRAUD because the governor had acted within his discretion. So, the SCt never had to address the issue of constitutionality. I never said that they did.

But, if they DID have to, Article 4, Section 3 would not apply to Virginia, which was no longer a state. Got that?

Article 4, Section 3, prevents an EXISTING state from being carved up by the federal government or by other states without its consent. Virginia, but its own declaration, was no longer a state. You hypocritical Confederate sympathizers cannot have it both ways. You cannot leave the United States and then invoke the protections of the US Constitution to prevent the federal government from interfering with the sovereignty of a REAL state. Got that, Jeb?

But as dumb as that part is, this assertion is even dumber:

4) The Supreme Court that made the final decision was also culpable because it was stacked by the same Congress which backed the perpetrated frauds listed at 1– 3. (In 1866, Congress reduced the number of SC justices from ten to seven to preclude any possibility President Johnson might appoint a justice who might rule against the Radical Republicans. Hence, the court itself was complicit in the unconstitutional act.)

Believe it or not, Johnny Reb, there is nothing wrong with that.

Congress gets to decide the size of the Supreme Court (see Article III, Section 1). THAT actually IS constitutional. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says there must be 9 justices. Congress can even prevent the Supreme Ct from reviewing certain types of cases by regulating the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2)

So, the Supreme Court wasn't "culpable" or "complicit" in anything. They had NO control over it. It was entirely the work of Congress, which wanted the post-Civil Warreforms of the Radical Republicans to be protected from being ruled unconstitutional by a Supreme Court stacked with Confederate sympathizers by Pres. Johnson. So they outsmarted him.

And the beauty of this is -THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

You seem to be confused about the word "constituional". It does NOT mean "fair" or "good" or "righteous". It only means that a law does not violate the Constitution.

At one time, counting a black man as 3/5ths of a person was "constitutional". It certainly wasn't good or righteous, but it WAS written right into the Constitution.

So, no, you still fail.

Only in your Confederate sympathizer OPINION was the rejoining of West VA into the Union unconstitutional.

You also have a bug up your ass about "extant evidence" of fraud and wrongdoing.

Perhaps you can mention the extant evidence of gross violations of the civil rights of blacks by southern whites who deprived blacks of the vote for nearly a century AFTER the Civil War ended. How many fraudulent laws were enacted by Congress because Dixiecrats had stacked the deck in Congress because blacks could not vote?

Your whole Confederacy was an enormous fraud designed to steal peoples lives. You are all hypocrites to split hairs about the whether the formation of West Virginia was proper.

Deflect all you damn well please, ExNYer. Your IMPROPER cite now stands against you, and you're scurrying for cover. Legitimate historians note that West Virginia's admission to the union as a separate state was an unconstitutional fraud. Suffice it to say: "the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of the state's creation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia

[Yssup Rider]

DO IT NOW DIPSHIT!!!!

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Hey, hey, hey, watch what u say about Mexico ICP. the main reason Mexico is so fucked up now is the U.S. conspired with Columbia to move the Cartels north. They are mostly wonderful hrdworking folks that have a saner and more democratic democracy than we do.

You are dead wrong buddy.

The US narcotics enforcment worked this way.

In the 1960s anyone who wanted to get high with anphetamines got them from MDs prescibing Benzadrine. To stop this in 1972 the DEA was formed and issued each MD a DEA number to track ther prescriptions. That's what ended the selling of Benzadrine.

The consequence of that was that Benzadrine users had to turn to cocaine, and it was in the years after 1972 that cocaine use skyrocketed from sellers from Colombia. When the US pressured the Columbian government to crack down a civil war ensured between the Columbian government and the cartels. With US aid the cartels lost.

When the Columbian cartels were alll shut down they could only manage to sell cocaine to foreigners, so Mexicans filled the gap. Mexicans also set up meth labs and used their distribution networks in the US to market high quality pure "Ice" methanphetamine.

This situation led to wars between Mexican gang fighting over turf, and that's how we got to where we are today.

Mexican who migrate to the US work sort of hard here and I know that's their image, but closer to the truth is very different.

Whenever I've hired Mexican immigrants for construction work and other duties I've had to watch them like a hawk because otherwise they'll slack off more than Americans will. Mexicans will also do very inferior work and are prone to steal anything not nailed down. Mexicans only work because they have to, and are really terrible workers.

Mexican American workers are just the opposite howver in my experience and are extremely hard and trustworthy.

The ones from Mexico are crooked.

The Mexican government is the most corrupt in all of Latin America, and Mexico has always been the most violent and dangerous place to be in all of Latin America.

INHO the US should cut off all trade with Mexico, and that would solve every kind of problem we have, including the narcotics problem.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by TheWanderer

Get ready for a name change.....Mexas...I like the sound of that.

Maybe they can work a deal and call it Texico! I like the sound of that.

Then we can all make minimum wage, wear a silly uniform and sing a jingle too!

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That is your opinion only and it is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]What Abe Lincoln THOUGHT does NOT determine whether or not he violated the constitution - even if he was deliberately trying to. Even if he announced to the whole world that he was actually trying to violate the constitution.

His action would be unconstitutional only if he is sued and a court rules his action was unconstitutional.

That's the law. Sorry.Just like Obamacare. No matter how much you hate it, it is CONSTITUTIONAL. At least until another Supreme Court overrules its previous holding. That's why we have a court to decide these things for us.


More unproven allegations by the Confederate sympathizer.

The reason why you call people names and use epethets is because you're not winning any argument.

If you want to portray Lincoln as a lawful statesmen you're going to have to defend these things:

1.Lincoln illegally threw in jail anyone caught speaking in public against his actions.

2.Lincoln illegally threw into jail any newspaper publisher who criticized him

3.Lincoln threw into jail any person who was seen in a group failing to speak in favor of his actions.

3.Lincoln threw into jail everyone in the Maryland legislature who voiced support for seccession.

4.Lincoln threw into jail all consciencous objectors, including Quakers, who where torured in jail by having their hands mangled so they couldn't be farmers or use their hands after release.

5.Lincoln threw into jail anyone threatening to file peitions in court challenging his executive powers to raise militias, arrest without habias corpus, shut down presses, etc.

6.Therefore all these legal petitons and actions occurred AFTER his assassination.
The real reason for his assassination, and the reason why his killer declared him a tyrant, wasn't because he defeated the South.

He was assassinated because of his crimes against the north.

"I am the President of the United States, clothed in IMMENSE POWER!!!!!" - Abraham Lincoln.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TheWanderer

Priced a fully stocked aircraft carrier lately?

Does Mexico have an aircraft carrier?

I think Canada ain't got none either.

"Lady Lex" is available for "stocking" after being "re-commissioned" though.

Now you want to start talking ... special operations ..

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Does Mexico have an aircraft carrier?

I think Canada ain't got none either.

"Lady Lex" is available for "stocking" after being "re-commissioned" though.

Now you want to start talking ... special operations ..

Buddy the United States doesn't even need one aircraft carrier LOL.

The United States spends over ten percent of it's GDP on military and funding of wars.
Seven percent is the Defense Budget and the rest is off budget.

If Texas was independent we wouldn't need any fucking military except to do what we did before and use the Texas rangers to go down to the border and shoot dead every illegal alien criminal who tries to come into our country to commit their stinkng banditry crimes, whether it's selling drugs, murder, extortion, rape, thievery, or slacking off and doing a shitty job on their cheapass "construction" work. The owner of my condo used Mexican nationals to save money re-roofing, and it looks like a total piece of shit!!!

Everyone in the construction industry, including me when I was a home builder, has seen the cheapass garbage of horrible foundations, uneven and unplumbed walls and windows,sloppy paint and drywall, that these Mexican workers do. And you've gotta watch them every fucking second or they won't do a damn thing, and they'll steal half the tools if you let them.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Buddy the United States doesn't even need one aircraft carrier ....

... hope that wasn't addressed to me ..

[icuminpeace]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Buddy the United States doesn't even need one aircraft carrier LOL.

The United States spends over ten percent of it's GDP on military and funding of wars.
Seven percent is the Defense Budget and the rest is off budget.

If Texas was independent we wouldn't need any fucking military except to do what we did before and use the Texas rangers to go down to the border and shoot dead every illegal alien criminal who tries to come into our country to commit their stinkng banditry crimes, whether it's selling drugs, murder, extortion, rape, thievery, or slacking off and doing a shitty job on their cheapass "construction" work. The owner of my condo used Mexican nationals to save money re-roofing, and it looks like a total piece of shit!!!

Everyone in the construction industry, including me when I was a home builder, has seen the cheapass garbage of horrible foundations, uneven and unplumbed walls and windows,sloppy paint and drywall, that these Mexican workers do. And you've gotta watch them every fucking second or they won't do a damn thing, and they'll steal half the tools if you let them.

I don't think Texas as an independent country would have to worry about illegal immigrants. I don't think anyone would want to leave a third world country to live in another third world country. But I do agree that the U.S. should shoot dead every Texan trying to illegally immigrate into the U.S. Was that racist? I don't know but your rant sure sounded racist.