"and to the Republic..."

Y'all have seen some of the chest thumping from folks who initiate actions for secession, either from the Union or as part of a state (Colorado for instance).

In the end both sides will use whatever laws seem to serve their purpose and arguments. I have no current involvement in any of these but I have brought this up to friends who are. The link below provides a well founded, as in our Constitution, definition of the differences. We pledge allegiance to the Republic, not to the Democracy. I suspect that most of the Liberals aren't even aware of how they're using it.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

As much as I agree with what you linked to I have to take exception to the first sentence, "...chest thumping from folks...". There are a number of very educated, very leveled headed people who do not thump their chests but see no other recourse. The rules of the republic should protect the rights of the minority but also pay attention to the desires of the majority. Time after time we see a minority opinion that creates new rights for a special class of people whose entire purpose seems to be to force people to pay attention to them kind of like a teenager. "LISTEN TO ME!", "I MATTER AND YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!"

Now a threat of secession may be a political ploy to garner attention and to inform the government of how unsettled the people are but it may be the only remedy seen by some. Note the 40+ times that the House has tried ot repeal Obamacare which is supported by nearly 70% of the people. What do you do when you are repeatedly abused? Take it or walk away?

Y'all have seen some of the chest thumping from folks who initiate actions for secession, either from the Union or as part of a state (Colorado for instance).

In the end both sides will use whatever laws seem to serve their purpose and arguments. I have no current involvement in any of these but I have brought this up to friends who are. The link below provides a well founded, as in our Constitution, definition of the differences. We pledge allegiance to the Republic, not to the Democracy. I suspect that most of the Liberals aren't even aware of how they're using it.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm Originally Posted by Loxly

From what I understand about secession (and I'm no expert) only Montana has any constitutional grounds to stand on.

Ok... maybe a bad description regarding the chest thumping. I deal with too many people who don't walk the talk. I don't advocate secession but I feel that under the rights of a Republic people can envoke some exemption from "the law", and in a "lawful manner".

I need only point to the exemptions granted to selective groups under Obamacare. Which I don't consider lawful by any means.

Many native american tribes are granted exemption and don't need to comply with hunting regulations.

The point is that there are ways to protect the rights of individuals when a "popular" position poses a threat to the livelyhood, safery and well being of others.

Ok... maybe a bad description regarding the chest thumping. I deal with too many people who don't walk the talk. I don't advocate secession but I feel that under the rights of a Republic people can envoke some exemption from "the law", and in a "lawful manner".

I need only point to the exemptions granted to selective groups under Obamacare. Which I don't consider lawful by any means.

Many native american tribes are granted exemption and don't need to comply with hunting regulations.

The point is that there are ways to protect the rights of individuals when a "popular" position poses a threat to the livelyhood, safery and well being of others. Originally Posted by Loxly

Only on tribal land.

Only on tribal land. Originally Posted by thisguy23

there ya go .... native americans paid the price to be able to hunt for free

there ya go .... native americans paid the price to be able to hunt for free Originally Posted by CJ7

?

Don't judge CJ harshly, he tries so hard.

My idea of secession is not blue and gray like some idiots think but more along the lines of civil disobedience. The people just stop responding to orders or demands from the federal government. I guess I have to point out that people also means the states. What would Obama do if say 15 states decided to just not obey?

Only on tribal land. Originally Posted by thisguy23

Not exactly. In certain treaties the gov't gave tribes rights outside of their reservations.Pacific northwest is one place. It used to be that in Michigan local tribes were also given an expanded hunting season.

Since these folks are hunting for food, and not trophies, the Republic has granted them this concession. It's fair and the right thing to do....MHO.

Not exactly. In certain treaties the gov't gave tribes rights outside of their reservations.Pacific northwest is one place. It used to be that in Michigan local tribes were also given an expanded hunting season.

Since these folks are hunting for food, and not trophies, the Republic has granted them this concession. It's fair and the right thing to do....MHO. Originally Posted by Loxly

I stand corrected, now that you mention the pacific nw some salmon fishing areas come to mind.

The idea of hunting for food was I'm sure the original intent but have no doubt about it trophy hunting is now involved.

The Union has failed to honor the Constitution and has become a lawless administration picking and choosing what it will and will not enforce. The "Executive" branch has been violating the laws that exist failing in their duty under the Constitution. It seems we have become corrupt and maybe it is time to dissolve the Union.

Don't judge CJ harshly, he tries so hard.

My idea of secession is not blue and gray like some idiots think but more along the lines of civil disobedience. The people just stop responding to orders or demands from the federal government. I guess I have to point out that people also means the states. What would Obama do if say 15 states decided to just not obey? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We already experienced 11 States doing exactly what you suggest.

The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. Sandra Day O’Connor Supreme Court Justice
Appointed by President Ronald Reagan 1981 Confirmed by Senate 99-0

From what I understand about secession (and I'm no expert) only Montana has any constitutional grounds to stand on. Originally Posted by thisguy23

Montana Constitution

ARTICLE I
COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES

All provisions of the enabling act of Congress (approved February 22,1889,25 Stat. 676), as
amended and of Ordinance No. 1, appended to the Constitution of the state of Montana and approved February 22,1889, including the agreement and declaration that all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, continue in full force and effect until revoked by the consent of the

United States and the people of Montana.

The Union has failed to honor the Constitution and has become a lawless administration picking and choosing what it will and will not enforce. The "Executive" branch has been violating the laws that exist failing in their duty under the Constitution. It seems we have become corrupt and maybe it is time to dissolve the Union. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I agree, we have an overbearing government, but the best solution is to leave. They aren't going to let you overthrow them.

Come on October...