TexasCHLforum.com

wil wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 12:10 pmif you're not interested in a debate, why did you respond in the first place, and respond 3 times subsequently?

And the more I think of this debate (which i find interesting and possibly useful for others to read and learn from), might I suggest we start a different thread on it. I would like to keep honoring those who fought in 1836, and i seems a little wrong for us to continue in this thread. I am definitely to blame for this also, but think maybe a new thread would be better.

wil wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:37 amyou are confusing 'might makes right' with what would be a just and proper law. Government may have the power to force a law on the public, such as unconstitutional infringements on our right to bear arms, However that does not make the so-called law right, just, and proper, or an act of legitimate authority.

The same for secession and related actions. Win and you are right, lose and you are a criminal, does not address whether or not the act was an inherent right of self-determination. It only falls into the category of 'might makes right'

And a bar is not a proper example owing to that is private property, the owner has the authority to tell someone they cannot carry on his property. government does not have the legal authority to do so. government may have the power to force such laws however see my previous on such laws as well as your own post.

Again the same question. If acts such as secession or a revolt to the aim of secession from a given government are illegal per the laws of the parent government, then is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence an untruth?

The answer to that question is a simple yes or no. Malum prohibitum is not always the truth, Malum in se is almost invariably the truth.

I beg to differ. You are confusing morality (right or just) with legal. The law is the law, and it may be right and just or it may be wrong and immoral. But breaking the law is illegal. You seem to understand this concept in part when you talk about malum prohibitum or malum in se. If you have a right to do something, but there is a law against it, the act is probably malum prohibitum. This does not make performing it any less illegal, though it might be right and just to do so.

A great example of this was Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus. Her act was clearly illegal, but it was both right and just.

And the bar was a good example of this also. I clearly indicated that the law was what prohibits you from carrying in a bar, not the owner. Your counter raises a very interesting question though. If I have the right to carry a firearm, can the owner stop me from doing so on his property? Can an individual violate my rights? What happens in the case of conflicting rights?

Where the bar and the Rosa Parks example might be faulty is that both are examples of an individual right. The right to rebel is clearly a collective right only.

And thus, I get back to my point of this being a false dichotomy. It is not a simple statement of one is true and the other is not. Both can be true or both can be false. I contend that both are true. The people have the right to rebel and form a new government, but that does not mean that it is legal under the statutes of the existing government. An interesting question I should probably research is how international law (if there is such a thing) plays into this concept. Does the UN recognize the right of a group of people to rebel?

wil wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:48 amwhat i wrote is called a logical conclusion based on your statement. If secession is illegal per man-made law such as Mexico or Britain, as you stated. Then the logical conclusion is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence is a falsehood, ie: a lie.

It is why I said this is an either/or answer, either one or the other is the truth.

I disagree and think you are proposing a false dichotomy with your logic. You may have a right to do something while there are still laws against. If you assert your right and do something, you may be convicted in a court. If you assert your right to rebel against the government and win, you go down in history as a hero, a la Washington. If you assert your right to rebel and lose, you go down in history as a traitor a la Washington to the British.

To put this in more modern terms, we have a constitution that expressly guarantees me the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Note that the exact wording says this right cannot be infringed (by the government at least since the constitution only restricts them and not private individuals). But you cannot legally carry your arms in several places in Texas, such as at a bar or in a professional sporting event.

So, you can have a right and still have laws forbidding it. What you forgot is if the government and courts recognize your right the same way you do.