James Harbour 🇺🇸 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equally non-Jews; that they are not endowed by their creator with certain magical powers, that among these are conjuration, reanimation, stormraising, holy-smiting.... youtube.com/watch?v=-qmKs7…

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick Because the laws of the government are challenged by secession and the rights of US citizens are abridged by secession. The "United States" is united by force of law.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick So what makes you think that party wouldn't be free to withdraw? If you join a club, can you be required to remain in it? Can a labor union require a member to remain in it? If you accept a job, can the employer require you to keep working?

Fun fact: Federal prosecutors were afraid to put Jefferson Davis on trial for treason because they knew he would likely be found innocent by a jury which would have validated the constitutionality of secession and proven that Lincoln's war had been an illegal act of aggression.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick Right, terms of withdraw are in no way discussed in the US Constitution like in the European Union because it's a national charter.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick It sounds like you're referring to the Supremacy Clause. However, it doesn't say that the Fed government can do anything it wants. It says only that, as to matters delegated to it by the states, the fed gov is supreme. The issue of secession was never delegated.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick Pursuant to the law - the state doesn't have a right to refuse the Federal law including in proclaiming secession. Lincoln in fact arrested state legislators for voting for secession with the military - since you're specifically talking about military force.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick Again... if Trump and a Republican Congress decide that California isn't acting pursuant to the ideals of the Constitution, your view is that the Constitution doesn't prohibit the President from removing the Governor by military force? That's your view of the Constitution?

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick Point is Congress has indeed laid down laws for the use of military force domestically. I consider a law that prevents the President from attacking something "intervention by Congress" in relation to the original criteria preventing the President from attacking whomever.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick Trump could attack California and remove Gavin Newsom from office as long as Congress doesn't object?

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick I would presume California would need some sort of organized violence before arresting Newsom would be a problem. But I have certainly called for the arrest of Newsom in relation to conspiracy against rights for Proposition 50.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick "Justified" is an ambiguous term potentially involving personal approval. e.g. I believe Trump can attack pretty much anyone so long as Congress doesn't intervene but it doesn't mean I agree with the particular foreign policy agenda behind the attack.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick Query: if 3/4 of the states during the Polk Admin had joined to amend the Constitution to make slavery legal in every state, and the people of Massachusetts objected and wanted to leave the Union, would Polk have been justified to use the Army to compel them to remain?

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick The United States Constitution espouses numerous ideals in law and the sources of those ideals are relevant to the interpretation of the Constitution to the tune of its agenda. The Confederates faced the force of laws against insurrection and treason, for example.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick You understand that "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" isn't a law, right? The Constitution is. The "ideals" of the Declaration, The Battle Hymn, The Star Spangled Banner, etc etc etc aren't. We're governed by laws, not ideals.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick The facts of the matter are The Battle Hymn of the Republic is one of the most "Christian Jihad" songs I've ever heard. Slavery was not popular among many of the enlightenment and it was not popular among many protestants. The US Constitution is a forebear of these sentiments.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick So your theory is that the Constitution was enacted to ensure the liberty interest of African slaves, yet it included a provision requiring states to cooperate with the apprehension of runaway slaves? I don't blame you for not trying to explain that

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick As I stated earlier: I believe the fugitive slave clause was mostly a concession to maintain unity and the intent and language of the philosophy of rights in the Constitution and DoI is of individuals - not states. And there was popular intent towards individual liberty.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick I am not going to answer questions explicitly answered in foundational documents of the revolution like the Declaration of Independence.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick Which rights? Which people?

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick The rights of people are universal, the needs of lands and townships are geographical - that is the meaning of the state and federal claims to jurisdiction. That abolitionism was so powerful a force proves this "national demand for freedom" was real in the minds of people.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick The Constitution was intended to form a limited federal government with specific enumerated powers. The only evil it was intended to address was the evil of centralized power. The "evils" of "feudaliam," slavery or anything else were state issues, to be address there.

@ClintRegert @dalepartridge This is the most retarded view of reality I've seen in a while.

@dalepartridge I would argue that if we don't have Christian Patriarchy, we end up with pagan Matriarchy - the worship of the divine feminine, which always demands the sacrifice of children.

If we don’t have Christian patriarchy, we will have pagan patriarchy. If we don’t have Christian nationalism, we will have pagan nationalism. If we don’t have Christians laws, we will have pagan laws. If we don’t have Christian rulers, we will have pagan rulers.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick Like I said: the conditions in France which was a Catholic feudal state were very different than the conditions of the US colonies resulting in very different courses of revolution. But you're pretending the US Constitution is naive to the evils of feudalism like plantations.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick Not at all. Despite pretense otherwise, the leaders of the French Revolution sought autocratic control of France. The leaders of the American Revolution wanted their democratic state governments to have control.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick The French Revolution was so different in large part because the monarchy was in their midst - not across the ocean. But many of the same philosophies drove many US founders as the French Revolution - the US Constitution is not "just another English plutocracy law."

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick The French Revolution was a leftist Revolution, not a conservative one. It was nothing at all like the American Revolution.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick You are totally wrong - for example both France and the United States were the only countries to both entirely ban nobility titles and, in fact, France is one of the few current European countries with banned nobility titles (if not the only I don't really keep count).

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick I mean, remember what happened in France just after the United States' founding: it truly wasn't culturally a great time for the "rights" of the landholding class least of all when it involves collaboration with the state for tyranny like slavery.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick The Constitution literally contemplated slavery and had a specific provision requiring states to return slaves to their owners. You can pretend the Constitution was somehow anti-slavery, but it wasn't. It was a compact between states where slavery was legal.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick I "pretend" nothing the fugitive slave clause was a concession to slavers who had wealth from stealing the labor of others and political power from threatening to otherwise release their abused slaves upon the people of the South. It was in no way the agenda of the Constitution.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick Point is: plantation system was obviously to the people of the time a part of English feudalism which the US Constitution was wholly and explicitly opposed to. Americans just don't want to be catching some landowners runway slaves for them.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick They mostly wanted to avoid conflicts about slavery which had been so divisive. The federal government had no power to end slavery without a constitutional amendment, but that didn't mean there weren't other issues of controversy. They were wise to avoid it.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick The United States lost 65% of its exports after the Civil War. Because its exports were cotton. Compared to Silicon Valley the people of the cotton industry were numbskulls. The CSA was a special interest power grab cause yes "slavery was divisive" among the people of the U.S.

@TheGrapeGatsby2 @TheRhetorRick The Confederate Constitution in many places was word for word the same as the US Constitution, but it contained numerous and explicit mentions of slavery. Obviously the Confederates agreed with me the US Constitution wasn't strongly defending slavery.

@PlayerTooReady @TheRhetorRick Lincoln gave approval to amending the Constitution to guarantee slavery rights forever, but said such an amendment was unnecessary because "such a provision [was already] implied constitutional law." Too bad you weren't around to explain it to him? battlefields.org/learn/primary-…