Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
"The issue is that you to define the best candidate solely based upon what they stand for." - CaptLouAlbano
This is the mindset trying to take hold on RPF.
"Kelly Thomas did this to himself." - FrankRep
You misunderstand the language. It means simply that if someone in the fort is being sued in a civil suit or is being charged with a crime under South Carolina law process can be served upon him on the fort by South Caroina authorities. It has nothing to do with the fort's ownership.
That doesn't follow. Even assuming the people "own" the federal government it means all of the people, not just South Carolinians. They would have no greater claim to the Fort than Virginians or Vemonters. But secession has no bearing on ownership. If South Carolina had sold the fort to the federal government would you seriously claim it could get it back by seceding? Or what if it sold cotton raised on state-owned land -- would the cotton suddenly become SC's property upon secession? The fact that the fort was ceded instead of sold is irrelevant. If someone makes a gift to you the subject of the gift is still your property even though you paid nothing for it, and the donor has no legal claim to it. The same applies to property that's ceded by a State.
This is reinforced by I.8.17, which contemplates that the area comprising the Seat of Government of the United States would come from land ceded by States. Would you claim that when Virginia seceded it magically became the owner of the portion of D.C. that it had ceded?
If every state seceded, there wouldn't be a federal government anymore. And if you think the federal government can't own property, the Constitution begs to differ: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." (IV.3.2).
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 01-22-2021 at 08:22 AM.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
I would not dispute that Trump was a tool. I would bet that COVID would have shut down the country regardless he was powerless to stop it. Turn on your TV to any channel and all you hear is New Strain COVID, When can you get your vaccine? New strain not as deadly but more contagious. Doesn't that fit the mask narrative? Is COVID a conspiracy? Is social distancing a fallacy? Does it come down to anything that MSM is saying is not true?
Western Pennsylvania is beautiful, and full of good people like you. So is West Virginia. AF's confederation would love to have you.
So would mine, but contiguity is important. So, bringing those blocs together would depend on Ohio. Could we depend on Ohio?
[IMG]https://kubric
"Provided, that all processes civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated in law"
All processes. Civil and criminal. It does not get much clearer than that. If SC issued an eviction, that is a civil proceeding. If SC declared the inhabitants to be criminals, they had that right as well. Either way, SC had every right to remove the inhabitants from that property.
You're also misreading the language. Check the grammar carefully, they are referring to executing orders related to the land itself. Not just the people on it.
"shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there".
You could remove the last piece ", and any person there" - and the language would still have meaning.
You also misunderstand the concept of ownership. The concept of ownership implies sovereignty over that land. Considering the significant limitations placed on the land, ownership was not ceded.
What the United States was ceded, could at best be described as a leasehold. Possession, without ownership. SC retained sovereignty over the land.
When South Carolina seceded, the federal government owed a portion of its assets to SC. It's entirely reasonable to assume, by default, that the "federal" assets that are in South Carolina, should be allocated to SC. SC made no claims over forts in other states.That doesn't follow. Even assuming the people "own" the federal government it means all of the people, not just South Carolinians. They would have no greater claim to the Fort than Virginians or Vemonters.
If that does not seem reasonable to you, if for example you believe that the US government invested heavily into SC, without SC reciprocating proportional taxes in return, then that dispute can be resolved through civil proceedings.
The North made it impossible to resolve it through civil proceedings, because they refused to even recognize that SC had even left the union.
The North gave them literally no option but to re-take their rightfully owned property by force. (and in a manner, I would point out, that resulted in zero people getting killed)
If it had transferred sovereignty of that property to a membership group they do not belong in (e.g., another state), they would not be able to reclaim it back through secession. Two things to point out though, is:But secession has no bearing on ownership. If South Carolina had sold the fort to the federal government would you seriously claim it could get it back by seceding?
1) SC did not transfer sovereignty of Fort Sumter to the US. They ceded, at best, a leasehold agreement.
2) SC at the time of ceding Fort Sumter, was a member of the US. They in effect ceded the land to themselves.
Married couples are able to divorce and separate their assets without needing to murder each other. Separation of assets is done through civil proceedings. The South gave the US plenty of time to either vacate the property or begin civil proceedings. Instead the North refused to acknowledge the South's sovereignty, and began militarizing the borders & seas, preparing for war.Or what if it sold cotton raised on state-owned land -- would the cotton suddenly become SC's property upon secession? The fact that the fort was ceded instead of sold is irrelevant. If someone makes a gift to you the subject of the gift is still your property even though you paid nothing for it, and the donor has no legal claim to it. The same applies to property that's ceded by a State.
This is reinforced by I.8.17, which contemplates that the area comprising the Seat of Government of the United States would come from land ceded by States. Would you claim that when Virginia seceded it magically became the owner of the portion of D.C. that it had ceded?
Given the circumstances that SC was placed in, by the North, it was entirely reasonable for them to assert their ownership on the forts within the geographic area of their state. If the North wanted to make any kind of negotiation to decide what assets are distributed to whom, they had that opportunity and chose not to do so.
Exactly.If every state seceded, there wouldn't be a federal government anymore.
And if there is no federal government anymore, to whom does that Constitution apply? To nobody.And if you think the federal government can't own property, the Constitution begs to differ: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." (IV.3.2).
You're missing the point however.
The point is that entities cannot own property. A piece of paper such as the Constitution does not own property.
Only people can own property. When you say the "federal government owns this property" what you are really saying is that each citizen in the country owns 1/300,000,000 of that property.
And if the 5 million people in SC were to want to secede, they would be entitled to ~2% of the federal government's assets (and liabilities).
Again, look to divorce proceedings to how its supposed to work. One party does not get to just keep all the assets in a divorce, though I'm sure Bezos would be much happier if that were the case.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Last edited by tod evans; 01-22-2021 at 10:54 AM.
You can't remove language to try and shoehorn the rest into something the drafters didn't intend. All it means is that SC authorities can go on the land the fort is situated on and serve process. The legal matter the process is associated with doesn't have to involve the land itself. For example, if a soldier got into a bar fight in Charleston and someone he beat up sued him for assault, the summons could be served on him in the fort.
If SC really wanted to serve an eviction notice it's doubtful anyone in the fort would have had the authority to accept service on behalf of the federal government. It's more likely someone in D.C. would need to be served.
That's inconsistent with the language of the cession, under which SC transferred "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory", which transfers ALL of SC's interest, not merely a leasehold.
Why would it? If you want to analogize the United States to a partnership and a State to a partner, the law is clear that a partner who withdraws from a partnership is entitled to receive something for his interest only if state law or the partnership agreement (a) permits him to withdraw, and (b) requires that he be paid for his interest. Since there's nothing in the Constitution regarding secession there's no legal basis for your statement.
Of course they can. For example, corporations and their shareholders are separate legal entities, and assets owned by a corporation belong to it, not its shareholders. But if as you say entities can't own property, how can they own leasehold interests, since a leasehold interest is a type of property?
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Just inserted https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod...604006333.gif? into the img tags.
You're focusing on one aspect only of that provision. The provision, as written, is incredibly broad and I would doubt sincerely that the drafters intended it to be as limited as you are trying to persuade.
As written, SC could force the US government to keep the grass mowed within 3 inches, or install gutters, or change the zoning of the property from a fortress to retail/commerce and force them to install a club/bar and force them to get a liquor license.
Anything they want.
The only thing they ceded was physical custody of the property. They did not transfer ownership.
You're missing entirely the key next part of the phrase, ", PROVIDED that ...".That's inconsistent with the language of the cession, under which SC transferred "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory", which transfers ALL of SC's interest, not merely a leasehold.
The law is clear on this, and was clear at the time of secession? Do you have a source to back that up?Why would it? If you want to analogize the United States to a partnership and a State to a partner, the law is clear that a partner who withdraws from a partnership is entitled to receive something for his interest only if state law or the partnership agreement (a) permits him to withdraw, and (b) requires that he be paid for his interest.
And by the way, there is no such thing as a partnership where a partner is not "permitted to withdraw". That's not a "partnership". That's "slavery".
The fact that there's nothing in the Constitution about it, only bolsters my position and weakens yours. By common law standards, if assets in a partnership need to be handled in a specific way, that has to be agreed upon by all parties. If there is no such agreement, then by default, the separation of assets would be decided by civil proceedings.Since there's nothing in the Constitution regarding secession there's no legal basis for your statement.
This is how it works with marriages/divorces, partnerships, corporations, anything basically.
It is your position, that has no legal basis.
Assets owned by a corporation belong to its shareholders. Which should be self-evident, so I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.Of course they can. For example, corporations and their shareholders are separate legal entities, and assets owned by a corporation belong to it, not its shareholders. But if as you say entities can't own property, how can they own leasehold interests, since a leasehold interest is a type of property?
My point, is that when a partnership is dissolved, the assets need to be distributed in a fair manner. Except when otherwise prescribed, this is done through civil proceedings. The North refused to even acknowledge that SC had even left the union, which forfeited any claims they may or may not have had over Fort Sumter.
Imagine if Jeff Bezos refused to acknowledge that Mackenzie had filed for divorce, so that he wouldn't have to split his fortune. Would you still be defending his position?
Last edited by TheTexan; 01-22-2021 at 11:14 AM.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
When that happens, you can try cutting off everything in the URL after the file extension (which often means the first question mark and everything after it).
So
https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif?crop=1.00xw:0.846xh;0,0.115xh&resize=900:*
becomes
https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
1776 > 1984
The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.
The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide
Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled
It's an optical illusion. The Biden Bums are legion, they're just all piled on top of each other in those little blue spots.
I noticed that when I first copied it and pasted it in my browser. I think we disabled the morphing action when we chopped off what we had to so it would show.
It showed a few eastern counties turn blue for Biden.
My point is, had Hillary been president and told people they had to stay home for Easter Sunday?? Not only every team red member in the country but also more than half the team blue members would have told her to shove it up her ass. The reason most people that consider themselves left leaning never took even a second to look into the actual science behind all this is that the argument got boiled down to "Trump says CV not real, Trump killing people, Trump bad". That's what his entire presidency got boiled down to. 'Anything Trump supported or stood for or spoke out for was EVIL' And the kicker? His grand finale was utterly destroying the republican party and white america for decades to come. NONE of that happens they way it did if Hillary is president.
"The issue is that you to define the best candidate solely based upon what they stand for." - CaptLouAlbano
This is the mindset trying to take hold on RPF.
"Kelly Thomas did this to himself." - FrankRep
I am hesitant to say much online these days. Anything can and will be used to declare those that don't bend the knee, to be domestic terrorists. The threat is real. They have transformed our nation into a place where silence = violence. If you aren't vocally supportive of the liberal state, you are an enemy of the state and thus a domestic terrorist.
With all of that said, I note that this nation was founded on armed resistance to English tyranny.
Self-defense is not murder.
Citizen of Arizona
@cleaner4d4
I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.
Okay. "It" works. But what is "it?" What are the objectives and what are the methods? Alright. January 6th wasn't all about Trump. I'll by that. What was "it" about? Election fraud? Okay. I'm still waiting for the krackalaken. That issue can only be dealt with through meaningful dialog. Had the GOP kept the Senate they could have had hearing. But the energy (and money) that should have poured into winning two seats went into what led up to Jan 6th.
The Bundy standoff had a clear objective. And IMO it was totally non-violent. (I know the left would disagree but screw them.) The Michigan anti lockdown protest objective was clear. And yes, the BLM protests worked. The media was not fair in it's coverage. I expect the media not to be fair at this point. But the other issue is that the objective of BLM was not support for any particular politician, even though particular politicians did exploit what was going on. If you have an objective that's independent of a party or political figure you can draw a broader base of support. Q-Anon's apparent object is stopping powerful people doing sex trafficking. Who can argue with that? But making Trump, a man who bought a teen beauty pageant and bragged about walking in on the under aged contestants undressed, the focal point of their movement tainted their movement.
The Soviet Union collapsed. If the U.S. collapses there may be a peaceful "separation." But we aren't there yet. And the Balkans, which was once part of the Soviet Union, broke up with much bloodshed. The U.S. political map is much like the Balkans. It's not "red states" vs "blue states" so much as it is "red swaths vs blue swaths." Newfondland and Labrador are separated from England by an ocean.The Soviet states separated with almost no gunfire at all.
The Newfoundland and Labrador separated from England peacefully.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Hopefully most will not share this sentiment with you. It's akin to asking to have your head put in a woodchipper. NAP literally stands for Non Aggression Principle. I hope you're not one of the ones that will be trying to herd people to extremism around here along with BWPaulsen or however it's spelt.
"The issue is that you to define the best candidate solely based upon what they stand for." - CaptLouAlbano
This is the mindset trying to take hold on RPF.
"Kelly Thomas did this to himself." - FrankRep
He was powerless to stop the pandemic itself. But that's no big deal. We've had worse pandemics without the thought even crossing anybody's mind that trying to stop them was worth having the government even bother with.
But where he wasn't powerless was in the government response to the pandemic. And that government response was many times more harmful to our nation than the pandemic itself was.
If you use force to stop force being done to you against your will, is that a violation of the NAP?
ETA - I'm not "herding" anybody.
Free men of good judgement will look at the situation and gauge for themselves, who and what is right.
You have an absolutely equal ability to speak to people here and convince them that your view is the correct path forward.
Let me be unequivocally clear in what I think: our current state of oppression is nothing to what is coming.
There will be no stopping it, there will be nothing left, "we" will not survive, unless we fight.
And unless we fight with a tenacity and toughness and force of will and creativity ten times that which drove men across Bunker Hill or up the mountains of Iwo Jima, we will fail.
And I do mean "fight" in the purest, literal meaning of the word: open bloody violent deadly armed conflict head to head with an enemy that has vowed to utterly crush us and reduce us to absolute despotism.
If this is too much for you, may I suggest the "Ignore" feature of the board.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 01-22-2021 at 04:36 PM.
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Connect With Us