For those of us on "The Right" the time has come for clear thinking.

[belian78]

I appreciate your well thought out response, the reasonse. If the Election was fair and square then maybe my CT meter needs calibrating. I agree that the response needs to be different than status quo. If the radical left believes the hogwash they are swallowing, how does anyone know if what they believe is reality? Trump was not the Savior or the enemy as much as Competition for the Lying Left and Right. If nothing else The Great Donald exposed the media.

The Donald was another cog in the machine as was meant to be a source of division in this country, and to get repubs to lay down for Covid restrictions. That's it, period end of story.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Your book says that Fort Sumter was ceded in 1836 with the below condition:

"Provided, that all processes civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated in law"

The South effectively gave them an eviction notice in 1861 and they had every right to do so based on this language alone.

You misunderstand the language. It means simply that if someone in the fort is being sued in a civil suit or is being charged with a crime under South Carolina law process can be served upon him on the fort by South Caroina authorities. It has nothing to do with the fort's ownership.

And who owns the "federal government"? The people. The land in SC ceded back to the people when SC seceded.

That doesn't follow. Even assuming the people "own" the federal government it means all of the people, not just South Carolinians. They would have no greater claim to the Fort than Virginians or Vemonters. But secession has no bearing on ownership. If South Carolina had sold the fort to the federal government would you seriously claim it could get it back by seceding? Or what if it sold cotton raised on state-owned land -- would the cotton suddenly become SC's property upon secession? The fact that the fort was ceded instead of sold is irrelevant. If someone makes a gift to you the subject of the gift is still your property even though you paid nothing for it, and the donor has no legal claim to it. The same applies to property that's ceded by a State.

This is reinforced by I.8.17, which contemplates that the area comprising the Seat of Government of the United States would come from land ceded by States. Would you claim that when Virginia seceded it magically became the owner of the portion of D.C. that it had ceded?

Thought experiment: if every state simultaneously secedes from the US, how much property does the "federal government" own? The answer is zero, because the federal government doesn't own anything. Only people can own property.

If every state seceded, there wouldn't be a federal government anymore. And if you think the federal government can't own property, the Constitution begs to differ: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." (IV.3.2).

 

[Sonny Tufts]

That could be accurate, however quoting a book printed in 1916 by the United States War Department, purporting to detail official acts of a southern state prior to the Civil War isn't very convincing. The Reconstruction period was used to extensively rewrite history in favor of the "victors", as is always done in the period following a war.

The book cites a resolution passed by the South Carolina legislature in 1836 and recorded in the deed records in Charleston in 1840, both well before Reconstruction.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The Donald was another cog in the machine as was meant to be a source of division in this country, and to get repubs to lay down for Covid restrictions. That's it, period end of story.

I would not dispute that Trump was a tool. I would bet that COVID would have shut down the country regardless he was powerless to stop it. Turn on your TV to any channel and all you hear is New Strain COVID, When can you get your vaccine? New strain not as deadly but more contagious. Doesn't that fit the mask narrative? Is COVID a conspiracy? Is social distancing a fallacy? Does it come down to anything that MSM is saying is not true?

 

[acptulsa]

I'm in Southwest PA and I'd love to stay here, but if I can't, WV is very nearby and would probably be a secessionist state.

Western Pennsylvania is beautiful, and full of good people like you. So is West Virginia. AF's confederation would love to have you.

New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont.

So would mine, but contiguity is important. So, bringing those blocs together would depend on Ohio. Could we depend on Ohio?

 

[TheTexan]

You misunderstand the language. It means simply that if someone in the fort is being sued in a civil suit or is being charged with a crime under South Carolina law process can be served upon him on the fort by South Caroina authorities. It has nothing to do with the fort's ownership.

"Provided, that all processes civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated in law"

All processes. Civil and criminal. It does not get much clearer than that. If SC issued an eviction, that is a civil proceeding. If SC declared the inhabitants to be criminals, they had that right as well. Either way, SC had every right to remove the inhabitants from that property.

You're also misreading the language. Check the grammar carefully, they are referring to executing orders related to the land itself. Not just the people on it.

"shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there".

You could remove the last piece ", and any person there" - and the language would still have meaning.

You also misunderstand the concept of ownership. The concept of ownership implies sovereignty over that land. Considering the significant limitations placed on the land, ownership was not ceded.

What the United States was ceded, could at best be described as a leasehold. Possession, without ownership. SC retained sovereignty over the land.

That doesn't follow. Even assuming the people "own" the federal government it means all of the people, not just South Carolinians. They would have no greater claim to the Fort than Virginians or Vemonters.

When South Carolina seceded, the federal government owed a portion of its assets to SC. It's entirely reasonable to assume, by default, that the "federal" assets that are in South Carolina, should be allocated to SC. SC made no claims over forts in other states.

If that does not seem reasonable to you, if for example you believe that the US government invested heavily into SC, without SC reciprocating proportional taxes in return, then that dispute can be resolved through civil proceedings.

The North made it impossible to resolve it through civil proceedings, because they refused to even recognize that SC had even left the union.

The North gave them literally no option but to re-take their rightfully owned property by force. (and in a manner, I would point out, that resulted in zero people getting killed)

But secession has no bearing on ownership. If South Carolina had sold the fort to the federal government would you seriously claim it could get it back by seceding?

If it had transferred sovereignty of that property to a membership group they do not belong in (e.g., another state), they would not be able to reclaim it back through secession. Two things to point out though, is:

1) SC did not transfer sovereignty of Fort Sumter to the US. They ceded, at best, a leasehold agreement.
2) SC at the time of ceding Fort Sumter, was a member of the US. They in effect ceded the land to themselves.

Or what if it sold cotton raised on state-owned land -- would the cotton suddenly become SC's property upon secession? The fact that the fort was ceded instead of sold is irrelevant. If someone makes a gift to you the subject of the gift is still your property even though you paid nothing for it, and the donor has no legal claim to it. The same applies to property that's ceded by a State.

This is reinforced by I.8.17, which contemplates that the area comprising the Seat of Government of the United States would come from land ceded by States. Would you claim that when Virginia seceded it magically became the owner of the portion of D.C. that it had ceded?

Married couples are able to divorce and separate their assets without needing to murder each other. Separation of assets is done through civil proceedings. The South gave the US plenty of time to either vacate the property or begin civil proceedings. Instead the North refused to acknowledge the South's sovereignty, and began militarizing the borders & seas, preparing for war.

Given the circumstances that SC was placed in, by the North, it was entirely reasonable for them to assert their ownership on the forts within the geographic area of their state. If the North wanted to make any kind of negotiation to decide what assets are distributed to whom, they had that opportunity and chose not to do so.

If every state seceded, there wouldn't be a federal government anymore.

Exactly.

And if you think the federal government can't own property, the Constitution begs to differ: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..." (IV.3.2).

And if there is no federal government anymore, to whom does that Constitution apply? To nobody.

You're missing the point however.

The point is that entities cannot own property. A piece of paper such as the Constitution does not own property.

Only people can own property. When you say the "federal government owns this property" what you are really saying is that each citizen in the country owns 1/300,000,000 of that property.

And if the 5 million people in SC were to want to secede, they would be entitled to ~2% of the federal government's assets (and liabilities).

Again, look to divorce proceedings to how its supposed to work. One party does not get to just keep all the assets in a divorce, though I'm sure Bezos would be much happier if that were the case.

 

[tod evans]

Western Pennsylvania is beautiful, and full of good people like you. So is West Virginia. AF's confederation would love to have you.



So would mine, but contiguity is important. So, bringing those blocs together would depend on Ohio. Could we depend on Ohio?

Image is smarter than I am...........Doesn't take much...

It's a map by county.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You're also misreading the language. Check the grammar carefully, they are referring to executing orders related to the land itself. Not just the people on it.

"shall and may be served and executed upon any of the land so ceded, or structures to be erected upon the same, and any person there".

You could remove the last piece ", and any person there" - and the language would still have meaning.

You can't remove language to try and shoehorn the rest into something the drafters didn't intend. All it means is that SC authorities can go on the land the fort is situated on and serve process. The legal matter the process is associated with doesn't have to involve the land itself. For example, if a soldier got into a bar fight in Charleston and someone he beat up sued him for assault, the summons could be served on him in the fort.

If SC really wanted to serve an eviction notice it's doubtful anyone in the fort would have had the authority to accept service on behalf of the federal government. It's more likely someone in D.C. would need to be served.

You also misunderstand the concept of ownership. The concept of ownership implies sovereignty over that land. Considering the significant limitations placed on the land, ownership was not ceded.

What the United States was ceded, could at best be described as a leasehold. Possession, without ownership. SC retained sovereignty over the land.

That's inconsistent with the language of the cession, under which SC transferred "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory", which transfers ALL of SC's interest, not merely a leasehold.

When South Carolina seceded, the federal government owed a portion of its assets to SC.

Why would it? If you want to analogize the United States to a partnership and a State to a partner, the law is clear that a partner who withdraws from a partnership is entitled to receive something for his interest only if state law or the partnership agreement (a) permits him to withdraw, and (b) requires that he be paid for his interest. Since there's nothing in the Constitution regarding secession there's no legal basis for your statement.

The point is that entities cannot own property.

Of course they can. For example, corporations and their shareholders are separate legal entities, and assets owned by a corporation belong to it, not its shareholders. But if as you say entities can't own property, how can they own leasehold interests, since a leasehold interest is a type of property?

 

[acptulsa]

Image is smarter than I am...........Doesn't take much...

It's a map by county.

Take the asterisk off the end, and it'll show.

And yes, it does look promising.

 

[tod evans]

Take the asterisk off the end, and it'll show.

And yes, it does look promising.

Just tried..........It disappeared?

So I put it back...

 

[phill4paul]

Just tried..........It disappeared?

So I put it back...

Just inserted https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-pro...m/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif? into the img tags.

 

[acptulsa]

Beats me...??

 

[tod evans]

Cool, thanks!

 

[phill4paul]

Cool, thanks!

My fathers side is from Ohio. Took him up to Hamilton for his funeral. While dining out saw at least 4 people open carrying on hip. People were friendly.

 

[TheTexan]

You can't remove language to try and shoehorn the rest into something the drafters didn't intend. All it means is that SC authorities can go on the land the fort is situated on and serve process. The legal matter the process is associated with doesn't have to involve the land itself. For example, if a soldier got into a bar fight in Charleston and someone he beat up sued him for assault, the summons could be served on him in the fort.

If SC really wanted to serve an eviction notice it's doubtful anyone in the fort would have had the authority to accept service on behalf of the federal government. It's more likely someone in D.C. would need to be served.

You're focusing on one aspect only of that provision. The provision, as written, is incredibly broad and I would doubt sincerely that the drafters intended it to be as limited as you are trying to persuade.

As written, SC could force the US government to keep the grass mowed within 3 inches, or install gutters, or change the zoning of the property from a fortress to retail/commerce and force them to install a club/bar and force them to get a liquor license.

Anything they want.

The only thing they ceded was physical custody of the property. They did not transfer ownership.

That's inconsistent with the language of the cession, under which SC transferred "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory", which transfers ALL of SC's interest, not merely a leasehold.

You're missing entirely the key next part of the phrase, ", PROVIDED that ...".

Why would it? If you want to analogize the United States to a partnership and a State to a partner, the law is clear that a partner who withdraws from a partnership is entitled to receive something for his interest only if state law or the partnership agreement (a) permits him to withdraw, and (b) requires that he be paid for his interest.

The law is clear on this, and was clear at the time of secession? Do you have a source to back that up?

And by the way, there is no such thing as a partnership where a partner is not "permitted to withdraw". That's not a "partnership". That's "slavery".

Since there's nothing in the Constitution regarding secession there's no legal basis for your statement.

The fact that there's nothing in the Constitution about it, only bolsters my position and weakens yours. By common law standards, if assets in a partnership need to be handled in a specific way, that has to be agreed upon by all parties. If there is no such agreement, then by default, the separation of assets would be decided by civil proceedings.

This is how it works with marriages/divorces, partnerships, corporations, anything basically.

It is your position, that has no legal basis.

Of course they can. For example, corporations and their shareholders are separate legal entities, and assets owned by a corporation belong to it, not its shareholders. But if as you say entities can't own property, how can they own leasehold interests, since a leasehold interest is a type of property?

Assets owned by a corporation belong to its shareholders. Which should be self-evident, so I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

My point, is that when a partnership is dissolved, the assets need to be distributed in a fair manner. Except when otherwise prescribed, this is done through civil proceedings. The North refused to even acknowledge that SC had even left the union, which forfeited any claims they may or may not have had over Fort Sumter.

Imagine if Jeff Bezos refused to acknowledge that Mackenzie had filed for divorce, so that he wouldn't have to split his fortune. Would you still be defending his position?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Image is smarter than I am...........Doesn't take much...

It's a map by county.

When that happens, you can try cutting off everything in the URL after the file extension (which often means the first question mark and everything after it).

So

https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif?crop=1.00xw:0.846xh;0,0.115xh&resize=900:*

becomes

https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif

 

[TheTexan]

When that happens, you can try cutting off everything in the URL after the file extension (which often means the first question mark and everything after it).

So

https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif?crop=1.00xw:0.846xh;0,0.115xh&resize=900:*

becomes

https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ohio-election-rewind-1604006333.gif

I'm still not sure it's working correctly. All I see is an Ohio-shaped object that is almost entirely filled with Donald Trump supporters.

 

[DamianTV]

I'm still not sure it's working correctly. All I see is an Ohio-shaped object that is almost entirely filled with Donald Trump supporters.

Its an animated gif. Let it load fully. May have to Refresh also as this animated gif doesnt appear to loop.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm still not sure it's working correctly. All I see is an Ohio-shaped object that is almost entirely filled with Donald Trump supporters.

It's an optical illusion. The Biden Bums are legion, they're just all piled on top of each other in those little blue spots.

Its an animated gif. Let it load fully. May have to Refresh also as this animated gif doesnt appear to loop.

I noticed that when I first copied it and pasted it in my browser. I think we disabled the morphing action when we chopped off what we had to so it would show.

It showed a few eastern counties turn blue for Biden.

 

[belian78]

I would not dispute that Trump was a tool. I would bet that COVID would have shut down the country regardless he was powerless to stop it. Turn on your TV to any channel and all you hear is New Strain COVID, When can you get your vaccine? New strain not as deadly but more contagious. Doesn't that fit the mask narrative? Is COVID a conspiracy? Is social distancing a fallacy? Does it come down to anything that MSM is saying is not true?

My point is, had Hillary been president and told people they had to stay home for Easter Sunday?? Not only every team red member in the country but also more than half the team blue members would have told her to shove it up her ass. The reason most people that consider themselves left leaning never took even a second to look into the actual science behind all this is that the argument got boiled down to "Trump says CV not real, Trump killing people, Trump bad". That's what his entire presidency got boiled down to. 'Anything Trump supported or stood for or spoke out for was EVIL' And the kicker? His grand finale was utterly destroying the republican party and white america for decades to come. NONE of that happens they way it did if Hillary is president.