Chuck Norris: We need a Second American Revolution, encourages Texas to secede

[fozzie 41]

Chuck Norris...

Don't diss chuck! Chuck Norris makes onions cry!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

True but interstate commerce keeps a lot of neighboring states interdependent with one another. Autonomy doesn't exist for any single state in the union.

Commercial ties can break down. Countries will find other ways to sustain themselves. See Cuba.

[mRx 16]

Some people still live in 1776.

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, I believe. I may be off by a few years. And I think we all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So... what's so wrong with looking back to that time period for inspiration and guidance? If everything from that era is wack, then perhaps we should throw out the Constitution as well?

Right, but the ideas do come out of the Revolution. Also, the Articles of Confederation predated the constitution but gave the states too much power and resulted in problems especially with interstate trade. Which of course led to the writing of The Constitution and the government we have today.

The Constitution was written for a different time. Insistence that we must adhere to it, as its written and as its writers intended, keeps us in that time. Our world is globalized, or economic system are much more dynamic, communication that once took weeks, can happen instantly. Do we insist that we must follow the writers intent, or do we adapt to a changing world.

A good case is the 2nd amendment. When it was originally written there was a good reason for it. The defense of the country was up to state militias, and its members had to provide their own arms. It wasn't until after the civil war we actually created the Army. If The Constitution was written today, with all the different challenges we face, would a provision such as the second amendment even be included? The way its being interpreted today, is different than the reason why it was originally written.

We should run our country for the challenges we face today, not on the idealism of 225 years ago.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Articles of Confederation, contrary to what the pitiful excuse for historians say. Washington, Hamilton, and other pro-power Federalists wanted to change the non-central individually governing Confederation to a more centrally controlled Federation, so they could levy taxes, distribute land, wage wars, and counterfeit currencies. The Federalists wanted to rule America, which is a spit in the face to those who fought and died against similiar tyranny imposed on the colonies by the British Empire.

To suggest that we need an up-to-date Constitution, or a "living" Constitution, to deal with today's challenges is just opening the door to Totalitarianism.

[AlHayatZween 2]

If Texas secedes, how long will it be before they become a mere borough of D.F.?

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

If Texas secedes, how long will it be before they become a mere borough of D.F.?

I think the same amount of time it took it to become a mere borough of D.C.

[HYENA 4]

the us would have it's military in so fast; there's been talk of secession for centuries. See it happen again and it will be ended if its for real. Too many federal troops in TX to let that happen.

Basically we haven't a chance; they're slowly disarming the public and taxing and IDing ammunition...they're regulating ammo now (slowly) mark my words in 30 years what will happen to ammo.

And I'm not a fan of guns or carrying them, I am of the constitution and of a lobbyist overthrow (who's really controlling our government)

We have a corporocracy now.

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

Texas wants to secede? Hell, if they agree to keep the whole Bush family then I'm all for kicking them out.

[SMR 368]

Some people still live in 1776.

The Constitution was ratified in 1787, I believe. I may be off by a few years. And I think we all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So... what's so wrong with looking back to that time period for inspiration and guidance? If everything from that era is wack, then perhaps we should throw out the Constitution as well?

Right, but the ideas do come out of the Revolution. Also, the Articles of Confederation predated the constitution but gave the states too much power and resulted in problems especially with interstate trade. Which of course led to the writing of The Constitution and the government we have today.

The Constitution was written for a different time. Insistence that we must adhere to it, as its written and as its writers intended, keeps us in that time. Our world is globalized, or economic system are much more dynamic, communication that once took weeks, can happen instantly. Do we insist that we must follow the writers intent, or do we adapt to a changing world.

A good case is the 2nd amendment. When it was originally written there was a good reason for it. The defense of the country was up to state militias, and its members had to provide their own arms. It wasn't until after the civil war we actually created the Army. If The Constitution was written today, with all the different challenges we face, would a provision such as the second amendment even be included? The way its being interpreted today, is different than the reason why it was originally written.

We should run our country for the challenges we face today, not on the idealism of 225 years ago.

This is crazy and in reality dangerous rhetoric. There is an amendment process so that we can change parts of the constitution that are not realistic 225 years later. Once you say that political/economic/social expedience can overrule part of the Constitution, it can overrule any part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights becomes good ideas, but no longer law.

As it was originally intended and laid out, the Constitution is intended to restrict the federal government. Anything that the constitution does not allow the federal government to do is restricted. When the Bill of Rights was added, the chief objection was that it was unnecessary. The argument of the founding fathers was that the federal government inherently couldn't make laws restricting anything protected by the Bill of Rights because the constitution didn't say it could. That is, unless the constitution says, "Congress can restrict the sale and possession of arms and ammunition," Congress can't do that.

The constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant rights. A person is born with rights. The federal government can only restrict rights if the constitution says it can. It can only do something if the constitution says it can. The federal government has no power to regulate health insurance or health care in general.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Basically we haven't a chance; they're slowly disarming the public and taxing and IDing ammunition...they're regulating ammo now (slowly) mark my words in 30 years what will happen to ammo.

Sounds to me like you want to, but you've given up hope before even trying.

Sounds like loser talk to me. Chuck Norris would not approve.

[natty bumppo 297]

This thread was only dead for 6 months ... can we put it back in the ground so it ferments a little more?

[HYENA 4]

Basically we haven't a chance; they're slowly disarming the public and taxing and IDing ammunition...they're regulating ammo now (slowly) mark my words in 30 years what will happen to ammo.

Sounds to me like you want to, but you've given up hope before even trying.

Sounds like loser talk to me. Chuck Norris would not approve.

I don't think you know how deep corruption lies. i organized a protest in front of a Senator's office and they knew people who knew people where I got called in at my workplace. Let me tell you they don't play by the rules. Get irritating enough and I wouldn't take anything off the table what these people won't do to keep hold of their power. The problem is you've got dems and repubs in the same pinky handshake club.

I'm for moving; I really don't think anyone can win it's so deep seated.