If the basis of legitimate authority is based on the consent of the governed, as identified in the declaration of independence.Papa_Tiger wrote:Ahh but we are. The conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression and Texas v. White settled that. Once a State has entered the union, it is no longer an independent state and cannot dissolve the bonds of said union peacefully or through force. Since the Constitution states that it and Federal Law is "the supreme law of the land", once in, the formerly free state must now be subject and no longer wholly free.Jeff B. wrote:A very timely post...
"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. "
We are not bound to the federal leviathan. Those who profit from its existence, of course maintain that we are...
Jeff B.
Why can that same consent not be withdrawn when the same government becomes destructive to the ends it was originally designed to protect? As is also correctly identified in the declaration of independence.
Consent given freely can also be withdrawn freely, is one of the supreme laws of this country as identified in the declaration of independence.
Can you give me a basis of validity why this is not true?