Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Virginia stands in defiance


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#46    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:45 AM

Oregons Bill of Rights:


Quote

Section 23. Habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in case of rebellion, or invasion the public safety require it.—


Quote

  Section 24. Treason. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid or comfort.—No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open Court.—


Quote

  Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]


also pertinent to the question of seizure of private arms:

Quote

  Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. —


Edited by AsteroidX, 29 January 2013 - 08:49 AM.


#47    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:53 AM

I find it interesting how it says the military will be strictly in the civil power....I read that to mean that if the military operates within the state then it is no longer a federal entity but a state entity..could be wrong but thats how I read that part of article 27 in the Oregon BOR.

The other states people have listed seem to have akin writing in them. Written before the Civil War and protecting the States from the change that made the States pay homage to The Federal Government...

Edited by AsteroidX, 29 January 2013 - 08:56 AM.


#48    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,108 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:57 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 29 January 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Oregons Bill of Rights:











also pertinent to the question of seizure of private arms:
Section 9 is a copy of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The military IS subordinate to civil power in our country.   It's refreshing to see state constitutions reaffirming that though.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#49    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:06 AM

Im curious though if the Federal Constitution Amendment that made the States Law less then Federal law in this case does this negate that part of the Oregon Bill of Rights or is it still a valid part of our State Constitution. Im not that educated in these points.

Edited by AsteroidX, 29 January 2013 - 11:06 AM.


#50    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,108 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:14 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 29 January 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Im curious though if the Federal Constitution Amendment that made the States Law less then Federal law in this case does this negate that part of the Oregon Bill of Rights or is it still a valid part of our State Constitution. Im not that educated in these points.
The 10th Amendment states:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#51    F3SS

F3SS

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,422 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:10 PM

View PostYamato, on 29 January 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

The 10th Amendment states:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes but the confusion is that in states constitutions the right to bear arms is in them but if the feds eradicated the second amendment from the US Constitution thereby prohibiting the states...Well doesn't that make the right of the states constitutions illegal in the eyes of the feds? I think yes. But then the states also proclaim the right to defend person and state, life, liberty and freedom over tyranny at all costs. It's confusing but I always think that in the event that the feds become tyrannical, arguments about the current state of affairs aside, then who really cares what they proclaim as law anymore because the states and people are dutified in eradicating tyranny.
I guess it all boils down to whenever one side or the other decides enough is enough and the first shots are fired. The most righteous side will gain the most support.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 29 January 2013 - 05:11 PM.

Posted Image

#52    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:15 PM

Thats why I refer to the Declaration of Independence as a legacy document because its our only document that describes grievances worthy of altering an existing government.

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.



#53    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,259 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • I love chocolate

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:44 PM

I've just got t say that Virginia has possibly the coolest flag I've ever seen.


#54    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:55 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 28 January 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

So basically, a state has outright said "we don't care what the Federal Government says, we're going to stand by the Constitution".
I don't know if this is brave, moral, stupid, insane or just plain laying the groundwork for Civil War II.

It is laying ground for either a revolution or civil war. It is currently up in the wind right now.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#55    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 6,421 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:41 PM

It is sad to see how little people understand what this country is about.  We are so beholden to ethe federal monolith that can seemingly do NOTHING right that we forget the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government.  Obama has said outwardly and in action that he doesn't respect the document and doesn't plan on letting it limit his power and the MSM and leftist s applaud his actions!  The states supporting Obama's every usurpation of their power are all broken, bankrupt democrat run failures.  The states opposing are the economically stable and in many cases wealthy republican run states.  Anyone see a pattern here?

An interesting experiment is to make two countries, democrat run and republican run and issue passports.Guess which states would have the most requests for visas?  Guess which states would have an illegal immigration problem?   It may come to this.  One thing that the failure Obama/democrat majority has accomplished is an awakening of states rights among the prosperous states in the union.  The only problem is as teh democrats states collapse, teh leftist rats abandon ship and spread their idological plague to other states.

Believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake.  The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence and if the universe does not comply with our predispositions, okay, then we have the wrenching obligation to accommodate to the way the universe really is.  - Carl Sagan

Who is more humble, the scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us or somebody who says everything in this book should be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of the human beings involved in the writing of this legend - Carl Sagan

#56    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,646 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

View PostMerc14, on 29 January 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

It is sad to see how little people understand what this country is about.  We are so beholden to ethe federal monolith that can seemingly do NOTHING right that we forget the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government.  Obama has said outwardly and in action that he doesn't respect the document and doesn't plan on letting it limit his power and the MSM and leftist s applaud his actions!  The states supporting Obama's every usurpation of their power are all broken, bankrupt democrat run failures.  The states opposing are the economically stable and in many cases wealthy republican run states.  Anyone see a pattern here?

An interesting experiment is to make two countries, democrat run and republican run and issue passports.Guess which states would have the most requests for visas?  Guess which states would have an illegal immigration problem?   It may come to this.  One thing that the failure Obama/democrat majority has accomplished is an awakening of states rights among the prosperous states in the union.  The only problem is as teh democrats states collapse, teh leftist rats abandon ship and spread their idological plague to other states.

You don't even have to take it that far.  All the data is available already for people to look at.  Of course, people just pick and choose what they want to see from the data.


#57    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:41 PM

View PostWickian, on 28 January 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

This whole gun control drama is just another stitch pulled out of the fabric that makes the county whole.  We're becoming more and more divided.  Immigration will be next probably.

I like that imagery of the fabric of the country. :tu:

Who is it that keeps pulling those stitches out?


#58    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,881 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:17 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 29 January 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Thats why I refer to the Declaration of Independence as a legacy document because its our only document that describes grievances worthy of altering an existing government.

Indeed - that's why I was angry at the passing of H.R. 347. Although not passed by Obama, it makes it difficult to list grievances to our government. Under the bill you could be arrested for a felony for protesting in the same area the president is. To that I say: how am I supposed to list my grievances if the person in charge of the Federal government can't even hear me? We have a right to redress government. Any one who says otherwise is a fool and needs to learn history.

View PostOverSword, on 29 January 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

I've just got t say that Virginia has possibly the coolest flag I've ever seen.

Definitely! It's a shining beacon that warns tyrants every where.

View PostUncle Sam, on 29 January 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

It is laying ground for either a revolution or civil war. It is currently up in the wind right now.

Indeed. I guess we'll just see which way the wind will blow.

View PostMerc14, on 29 January 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

It is sad to see how little people understand what this country is about.  We are so beholden to ethe federal monolith that can seemingly do NOTHING right that we forget the constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government.  Obama has said outwardly and in action that he doesn't respect the document and doesn't plan on letting it limit his power and the MSM and leftist s applaud his actions!  The states supporting Obama's every usurpation of their power are all broken, bankrupt democrat run failures.  The states opposing are the economically stable and in many cases wealthy republican run states.  Anyone see a pattern here?

An interesting experiment is to make two countries, democrat run and republican run and issue passports.Guess which states would have the most requests for visas?  Guess which states would have an illegal immigration problem?   It may come to this.  One thing that the failure Obama/democrat majority has accomplished is an awakening of states rights among the prosperous states in the union.  The only problem is as teh democrats states collapse, teh leftist rats abandon ship and spread their idological plague to other states.

I do agree that the Leftist media have swooned over Obama like he's the second coming of Christ. Does that sort of cult of personality worry me? Definitely. Especially when those on the Left seem to be willing to give up their rights so arbitrarily for a man they put too much trust into. Now, as the president, I have a level of respect for him. I respect him for ending the Iraq War - but it had to end some time. He just happened to be president at the right time, that's all. As for Republican states - they are going to be harder to convince to hand over their rights - especially limiting the Second Amendment's scope. That will be like persuading a Monarch to bankroll a revolution against a Monarch; *cough* Benjamin Franklin *cough*.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image

#59    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,108 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:29 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Yes but the confusion is that in states constitutions the right to bear arms is in them but if the feds eradicated the second amendment from the US Constitution thereby prohibiting the states...Well doesn't that make the right of the states constitutions illegal in the eyes of the feds? I think yes. But then the states also proclaim the right to defend person and state, life, liberty and freedom over tyranny at all costs. It's confusing but I always think that in the event that the feds become tyrannical, arguments about the current state of affairs aside, then who really cares what they proclaim as law anymore because the states and people are dutified in eradicating tyranny.
I guess it all boils down to whenever one side or the other decides enough is enough and the first shots are fired. The most righteous side will gain the most support.
If it was simply a repeal that did away with the 2nd, the national right would be lost but not that State's.  Unless it was as you said, and the amendment that repealed the 2nd expressly prohibited the states from having the right to bear arms.  How much crack is everyone going to have to smoke for that to happen though?  

Remember that the initiative to eliminate the 2nd Amendment in this scenario must be a matter of state ratification in the first place, so it wouldn't be federal tyranny that did it in.  It would be a matter of 38 of our 50 states doing it voluntarily.   So between 1 and 12 states would be smoking mad at that scenario.  If they started shooting about it, I wouldn't put any money on their ultimate victory.    The way to fight such a crazy scenario would be to appeal to other governors and do it diplomatically.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#60    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:13 PM

Quote

Indeed - that's why I was angry at the passing of H.R. 347. Although not passed by Obama, it makes it difficult to list grievances to our government. Under the bill you could be arrested for a felony for protesting in the same area the president is. To that I say: how am I supposed to list my grievances if the person in charge of the Federal government can't even hear me? We have a right to redress government. Any one who says otherwise is a fool and needs to learn history.

Im stuck here as well. Unless you want to consider that this forum is 1. moderated  2. likely monitored because of its CT's 3. The Internet is a form of displaying greivances (though not optimal) we have certainly been able to talk through and get our evidence organized on this platform.

Then I came across this from the Articles of Confederation: http://en.wikipedia....f_Confederation

Quote

To transform themselves from outlaws into a legitimate nation, the colonists needed international recognition for their cause and foreign allies to support it. In early 1776, Thomas Paine argued in the closing pages of the first edition of Common Sense that the “custom of nations” demanded a formal declaration of American independence if any European power were to mediate a peace between the Americans and Great Britain. The monarchies of France and Spain in particular could not be expected to aid those they considered rebels against another legitimate monarch. Foreign courts needed to have American grievances laid before them persuasively in a “manifesto” which could also reassure them that the Americans would be reliable trading partners. Without such a declaration, Paine concluded, “[t]he custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independence, we take rank with other nations.”[5

So when we feel we have the organization and agreement one just has to appeal to the international community and ask for legitimacy. Then the Government is forced to respond as the international community will have responded.

Easier said then done of course.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users