Trump wins major endorsement...National Police Organizations

[Wrangler]

USSC Justice Scalia wrote an opinion a little while before his murder as to why the Constitution wouldn't let California secede.

Great men can be wrong. A major point in Jefferson Davis' masterpiece, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, and why he was never brought to trial for treason is the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit secession. Indeed, the ascension of the proposal to the Creature it became was ratification of the States and the power of YES is the power of No. Therefore, it must be a retained power according to the 10th Amendment.

Furthermore, Davis traces the ratification of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, who specifically debated the scenario of the Creature using force against the States. They settled on the absence of any power enumerated as sufficient guarantee of it ever happening. Under the anti-Jefferson leadership of Lincoln, they were proven very wrong.

What you write is absurd on its face; in the absence of proof text granting such a power, it is not the Constitution that has the power to "let" the States succeed or not. Scalia, relying on a packed Reconstruction era court ruling, is aware the Court does reverse itself from time to time. Most notably, in over-turning baby murdering. This shows, as Huckabee likes to point out, that the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

Truth is issues are never "settled" for all time. Each generation must wrestle anew with moral issues and decide for themselves how best to proceed. History shows the human condition is like an accordion, forever waxing and waning, back and forth cycle. Globalism has its advocates but nationalism is also on the rise with the ascendancy of Trump, Brexit, Italy, Argentina and others around the world.

What would Arizona and others do with all those illegals afterward if they did secede?

What any Sovereign State may choose to do.

 

[Biblepaige]

Great men can be wrong.

He wasn't. You don't understand the Davis case.

"The question of secession’s lawfulness was instead ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court in a less sensational case just two months later. Texas v. White, in April 1869, stated succinctly that the Confederacy’s secession had been “absolutely null.” Williams v. Bruffy, an 1877 case, elaborated further on secession’s illegality with much more a thorough explanation by the court of the legal reasoning involved. These rulings stand as the current authority on the status of secession in American law.2"

The Trial of Jefferson Davis Cancelled - February 15, 1869 - Richmond National Battlefield Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

A major point in Jefferson Davis' masterpiece, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, and why he was never brought to trial for treason is the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit secession. Indeed, the ascension of the proposal to the Creature it became was ratification of the States and the power of YES is the power of No. Therefore, it must be a retained power according to the 10th Amendment.

Furthermore, Davis traces the ratification of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, who specifically debated the scenario of the Creature using force against the States. They settled on the absence of any power enumerated as sufficient guarantee of it ever happening. Under the anti-Jefferson leadership of Lincoln, they were proven very wrong.

What you write is absurd on its face; in the absence of proof text granting such a power, it is not the Constitution that has the power to "let" the States succeed or not. Scalia, relying on a packed Reconstruction era court ruling, is aware the Court does reverse itself from time to time. Most notably, in over-turning baby murdering. This shows, as Huckabee likes to point out, that the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

Truth is issues are never "settled" for all time. Each generation must wrestle anew with moral issues and decide for themselves how best to proceed. History shows the human condition is like an accordion, forever waxing and waning, back and forth cycle. Globalism has its advocates but nationalism is also on the rise with the ascendancy of Trump, Brexit, Italy, Argentina and others around the world.

Link?

What any Sovereign State may choose to do.

No

 

[Biblepaige]

Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede" - New York Personal Injury Law Blog

The right of a state to secede from the nation is way outside my personal injury wheelhouse. But it has become a source of conversation on professorial and political blogs, and the concept has generated interest from the Tea Party movement. As it happens, my brother has a letter from Justice...

newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com

Sorry Secessionists, Justice Scalia Won't Help You Out

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Wrangler]

He wasn't.

Yes, he was. It is you who do not understand the Davis case.

 

[Wrangler]

Link?

You really need a link to this?

What you write is absurd on its face; in the absence of proof text granting such a power, it is not the Constitution that has the power to "let" the States succeed or not. Scalia, relying on a packed Reconstruction era court ruling, is aware the Court does reverse itself from time to time. Most notably, in over-turning baby murdering. This shows, as Huckabee likes to point out, that the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

Truth is issues are never "settled" for all time. Each generation must wrestle anew with moral issues and decide for themselves how best to proceed. History shows the human condition is like an accordion, forever waxing and waning, back and forth cycle. Globalism has its advocates but nationalism is also on the rise with the ascendancy of Trump, Brexit, Italy, Argentina and others around the world.

Try reading the source materials for yourself rather than rely on Appeal to Authority.

To better understand the part in red above, I invite you to read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and especially The Rights of Man.

Even you must know that the USSC reversed itself on baby killing.

 

[Biblepaige]

You really need a link to this?

The rules of the forum require it.
When you obviously copied and pasted someone else's work and don't provide a link it may be construed as an act of Plagiarism.

Try reading the source materials for yourself rather than rely on Appeal to Authority.

You're fond of citing fallacies in your post.

Try demonstrating some character and integrity. Don't steal someone else's intellectual property. Then paste it here under your name and then act out because a simple request,question, "link?", about those pasted materials sets you off.

To better understand the part in red above, I invite you to read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and especially The Rights of Man.

Thank God for Google huh?

Even you must know that the USSC reversed itself on baby killing.

Off topic.
You were wrong.

 

[Biblepaige]

Yes, he was.

Denial of authority. The Supreme Court wasn't wrong either back in the 1800's.

It is you who do not understand the Davis case.

When you introduced that case in your claim against Scalia's observation regarding state secession and it was proven you were wrong, it would be you who does not understand.

You demonstrate a capacity to go to great lengths to refuse to admit you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. That's immaturity.

When you balk at posting a link to someone else's intellectual property that you had at first passed off as your own, that's even worse. That's a lack of integrity and character.

I'm sure the Mods will explain the rule regarding posting the link to other people's work.

 

[Rita]

Within forum rules ……..
Respect copyrights. If you draw from others’ work, please cite your sources (reasonably) and provide proper credit.
@Wrangler - the post will be deleted if you do not post a link …..will give you time to add it x

 

[Wrangler]

Within forum rules ……..
Respect copyrights. If you draw from others’ work, please cite your sources (reasonably) and provide proper credit.
@Wrangler - the post will be deleted if you do not post a link …..will give you time to add it x

What are you talking about? I did cite the source. To my knowledge, there is no "link" to the Jefferson Davis book. One must read and understand it. I do. And referenced it. It's about 1800 pages long.

It's so odd the dependence people have on the internet. It's like if there is not a link, the cited source doesn't exist. My God!

 

[Wrangler]

When you obviously copied and pasted someone else's work

I did no such thing! And I resent the accusation. What post did I plagiarize? Referencing and paraphrasing Davis and Paine's work is not copy and pasting it.

 

[Rita]

What are you talking about? I did cite the source. To my knowledge, there is no "link" to the Jefferson Davis book. One must read and understand it. I do. And referenced it. It's about 1800 pages long.

It's so odd the dependence people have on the internet. It's like if there is not a link, the cited source doesn't exist. My God!

Post 21 - it does look as if the whole post is copied and pasted, although there is a reference ‘ The Rise and fall of ……. ‘ it looks as if that Is part of the quote and not its source.
So is ‘ The rise and fall …..’ the actual reference ?
If that’s the case then I stand corrected - it isn’t clear

 

[Biblepaige]

Post 21 - it does look as if the whole post is copied and pasted, although there is a reference ‘ The Rise and fall of ……. ‘ it looks as if that Is part of the quote and not its source.
So is ‘ The rise and fall …..’ the actual reference ?
If that’s the case then I stand corrected - it isn’t clear

It's impossible to tell.

He very obviously copied and pasted or copied outright text from a source he did not credit.

The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government isn't a proper source note.

If someone does excerpt text from someone's Copywritten intellectual property and then posts it online they are to cite the book title, publisher, and year published as pertains to that book copy the excerpt is from, author,chapter and its header if any, and the page.

The way the Wrangler post was written makes a reference to an alleged book title. Alleged because there is none of the descriptions I previously mentioned regarding proper form when posting an excerpt.

Then, in his next paragraph he does not identify the text as an excerpt or quote.

Example of proper form. (Sic) < Indicates the text to follow is excerpted from a larger body of text.
And then: (Sic)"....the text excerpted.... Followed by close quotes.

The manner in which he published his post makes the reader to think he is referencing an alleged book in one paragraph. Then he is giving a synopsis of the material in the alleged book that purportedly sustains his prior claim regarding Sedition in his own words.

The material needs a reference to credit someone's intellectual property that is being published on the web by someone not the author of the alleged book.
If there is no link that's not anything that can preclude giving full credit otherwise to the source of the excerpt.

Wrangler referencing a book title in one paragraph is out of context for a readers understanding of the excerpted intellectual property of someone else in any paragraphs that follow.

There's no real excuse for this when anyone on the net in forums knows ,and forums issue rules for this, materials not ones own free thought that is copied and pasted into any forum must include the source from which those materials are derived.

Reason being and especially in a forum discussion format, readers may infer what they are reading is the free thought of that named member who published it on the forum.
Which is why clarity demands credit where credit is due. It's the rule in forums and its the law.

When asked for a link to someone else's intellectual property the response should never be,do you really need one?
If no link is available, title,author,publisher, and so forth as earlier described,is the appropriate response. And it shouldn't be difficult to provide if someone is in possession of the alleged book they claim to have referenced.

 

[Wrangler]

Post 21 - it does look as if the whole post is copied and pasted, although there is a reference ‘ The Rise and fall of ……. ‘ it looks as if that Is part of the quote and not its source.
So is ‘ The rise and fall …..’ the actual reference ?
If that’s the case then I stand corrected - it isn’t clear

My God! It is 100% my own writing. Not sure what it looks like but an excellently crafted piece. If someone is accusing me of plagerism, they have the burden to proof it! I do not have the burden to provide a link to prove my innocence.

Regarding references, I mentioned 2 (included with post #25) but directly quoted, ‘copied and pasted’ neither.

I suppose I should take it as a compliment that my analysis seems like the work of masterpiece books. It’s a bit hard with accusations of wrong doing. Geesh!

 

[Wrangler]

Within forum rules ……..
Respect copyrights. If you draw from others’ work, please cite your sources (reasonably) and provide proper credit.
@Wrangler - the post will be deleted if you do not post a link …..will give you time to add it x

Neither book I referenced is copyrighted.

Getting past the accusations and back to point, the right of secession was declared AND achieved when the several States seceded from the British Empire. Therefore, to deny the right of secession is to deny the moral foundation of the country, to deny the Declaration of Independence.

The Founding Fathers assertion is that right come from God, not government. Their legal claim was tenuous but established precedence for the South in the War of Northern Aggression.

Two States, in particular, make the denial of the right of secession particularly specious: Texas and Virginia.

With respect to Texas, they recently seceded from Mexico before joining the federation of Sovereign States, who establish the Creature of the Constitution in joint. On what formula of logic does Texas have the right of secession against Mexico but not the USA?

After the War of Northern Aggression began, part of Virginia seceded. The USA recognized this right when they admitted West Virginia to the Union. On what formula of tortured logic does part of Virginia have the right to secede from Virginia but other parts of Virginia do not have the right to secede from their previous voluntary association?

The tyrant Lincoln did not rely on reason but brute force, causing the bloodiest war in American history was bloodier than all the wars since the Revolution to the Persian Gulf War, combined.

It is a master stroke to call him the Great Emancipator when his Proclamation specifically freed none of the slaves the USA had the power to free but diabolically declared the secession of the slaves in territories it had no power to execute its declaration. Diabolical. The canonization of the American tyrant is something to behold!

Now, I’m going to directly quote the Constitution here at Article III, Section 3 in referring to the Sovereign States as “them:” Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them. That is EXACTLY what Lincoln did, levying war against them, the Sovereign States he claimed they remained part of the USA under the Constitution and could not leave.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@Wrangler

Interesting stuff there.

 

[Wrangler]

obviously copied and pasted someone else's work

Don't steal someone else's intellectual property.

You have bared false witness against me.

Losing the argument so dramatically, you turn to Ad Homenim.

Off topic.
You were wrong.

I was not wrong and the SC reversing itself is common knowledge. See baby killing. This is a Christian forum. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

 

[Wrangler]

The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government isn't a proper source note.

Why not?

If someone does excerpt text from someone's Copywritten intellectual property and then posts it online they are to cite the book title, publisher, and year published as pertains to that book copy the excerpt is from, author,chapter and its header if any, and the page.

This is not an academic paper AND the source is not copyrighted AND I did not quote, ‘copy and paste’ a book I read years ago.

 

[Wrangler]

If someone does excerpt text from someone's Copywritten intellectual property and then posts it online they are to cite the book title, publisher, and year published as pertains to that book copy the excerpt is from, author,chapter and its header if any, and the page.

It's the rule in forums and its the law.

You are guilty of what you are accusing me of doing. I only referenced a book. You referenced "the law." What specific law states I must include in online forums citations of the following detail:

1. book title,
2. publisher, and
3. year published
4. author,
5. chapter and i
6. ts header if any, and
7. the page.

Especially as it relates to original work the poster in online forums creates?

 

[Biblepaige]

Fair Use: When Copyrighted Material Can Be Used Without Permission

In some situations, you may make limited use of another's copyrighted work without asking permission or infringing on the original copyright.

www.nolo.com

Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Chapter 1:

The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, by Jefferson Davis | The Online Books Page

Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States — Association of Research Libraries

18th-19th Centuries | 20th-21st Centuries | Bibliography and Resources The history of American copyright law originated with the introduction of the printing press to England in the late fifteenth century....

www.arl.org

 

[pompadour]

This is a debate forum, No one on the forums is publishing a literary work.
If we, the Mods must in fores copyright rules on the all the posts on all the forums we will need 10 times as many Mods as we have,
we have trouble keeping the few mods we have.

Lets move on to meaningful debate in an edifying manor.