TexasCHLforum.com

LSUTiger wrote:Tyranny and oppression do no not care about legality. Those who would abuse their authority to gain power do so in the with complete disregard for the Constitution and laws.

The federal government has become corrupted an many of our laws have become so convoluted and ridiculous that they are no longer consistant with serving the people, with freedom or liberty. Instead they serve the growing police state.

There is the law, and then there is right and wrong. Sometimes the law is right, sometimes it is wrong. "They" are trying to subvert and corrupt all of our laws. When whats wrong is right and whats right is wrong, they will say "but thats the law!"

I agree when that line is crossed its time to start over.

My point is, we can have all the legal standing and moral high ground to do something but it is not a defense against tyranny.

Should Texas try to sucede, legal standing and moral high ground will not be enough to defend against armed federal troops sent here to squash the rebellion.

Today is no different than the first revolution, they did not look to legal precedent,but to the desire to have freedom and liberty, and the reality that enough is enough.

suthdj wrote:

wil wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion.

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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 to 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.

Why do you consider the illegal use of violence on the part of government as making the legal grounds for seccession as moot? The legal grounds for secession are specifically yours and everyone else's rights, and the freedom to engage in said rights. The legal grounds for doing so are specifically spelled out in the underlined portion above, which is from the founding legal document of this country. Any action on the part of government which restricts any individuals ability to engage in thier right to do this, is illegal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action.

I put the entire text in the first quote so that this portion of it will show it's not taken out of context. Here is the question:
Is the above quote a true statement? The answer to that is either yes or no.
If your answer is that it's not a true statement of natural law, then what is the legal basis for the existence of this country and the government which rests upon it?
As if that statement of natural law is false, then the rest of the declaration of indepence is also a false statement, the DOC being a bonafide statement of natural law and the legal basis for the founders of this country seccession from the government of england as well as the legal basis for the existence of this country.

The use of violence does not confer legitimate authority, it only confers power. Legitimate authority is derived from consent, specifically agreement to whatever contract of government is being created and offered.
Again from the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The D of I is just that a declaration it holds no power of law, the constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Now we could reuse it to do the same but that won't go over to well.

LSUTiger wrote:Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.