And again I ask, exactly WHO is this Hidden ""Sovereign"" that the States were Rebelling against??
Asked and already answered in prior reply.
Or is it that you think the States were Conquered by the United States in the American Revolution??
Already answered in prior reply. The states entered into a compact, the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Articles of Confederation (eventually replaced by an improved Constitution) binding each other into one Union, a new nation.
I'm trying to find WHERE you think the States are OWNED by the Federation, just explain that one little part....
Misrepresenting what people said, let alone fabricating words never said, ain't cool my man. Never contended that the states are "owned" by anyone. I said the states are bound by the Constitution, and all federal laws duly authorized under it, which do not violate it. These were the terms of the club agreed to by the members, those representing the states party, as chosen by the people, when the Declaration of Independence was approved, the Articles of Confederation ratified, and then the Constitution ratified.
If you want to leave the Country Club (better analogy than the fictitious line from the character of George Pickett in the movie Gettysburg, calling it a "gentlemen's club"), nobody is stopping you. But if you're rescinding your membership, then you don't get to come use the golf course or use the pool, let alone tear up the grass or piss in the pool, and you certainly don't get to take all of the beer from the bar on your way out. That's the club's property, a club which you no longer want to be a part of. Nobody in 1860 was forcing anyone to stay in the USA. The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere (they previously had their sights on Cuba and elsewhere in South America). But they didn't. Instead of waiting until the next Board Election, they went out and did doughnuts on the greens, took dumps in the pool, drank all the beer, and refused to leave the clubhouse, acting as if it was their right to be a shithead.
Same applies today. Nobody is forced to stay here. If you hate this country so much, get on a plane or ship and leave. Our course conditions might be a little rough right now, it sucks that the pool is closed and the bartender isn't very good, but the Board can always be replaced and the problems fixed. If the Board is currently being occupied by fraudsters, well then we seek judicial remedy.
But what we don't do, is be like the rebel shits of 1860, who ironically and hypocritically were descendants of those who condemned the "Yankees" only 50 years prior for threatening to leave the Union in response to Mr. Madison sucking the nation in a bullshit war with the British, which was arguably a constitutional violation (not Congress's declaration of war, but the unlawful shenanigans that created the situation).
I love that you brought up the Supremacy Clause and Law of the Land Clause, because IF we are to have a ""Dual Sovereignty"", then the Federation CANNOT OWN neither a ""State"", nor any part thereof....
The Federation is LOANED or ALLOWED, but mainly TOLERATED to have small pieces of Land for Forts, Magazines and other needful things, the LAND is still OWNED by the State therein....
And when it comes to the Federal Constitution, Treaties and such, as being the supreme Law of the Land, those things can be annulled within each State by legislative decree, and there isn't one single thing the U.S. Govt can DO about it....
As for whether the Crown Gave up the colonies willingly or otherwise, it is painfully obvious it was done begrudgingly in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, where he gave them up individually, by name, and not all as just one grouping, he recognized them to be each a Sovereign Nation like France, Spain, etc, and EQUAL to those Nations....
NEXT Articles of Association, at best are a Letter of Intent, and just like any letter of Intent, in Business Law, it cannot be held up in Court, nor can it be forced into any form of Contract, it is only INTENT and not solidified Agreement....
So after that, comes the Various Constitutions vis., Massachusetts Constitution, written in 1787, Virginia Constitution 1776, etc, ALL of the NEW NATIONS had their own Constitutions BEFORE the U.S. was ratified into a thing/Corporation....
The states do retain certain rights, some explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and countless others not detailed but covered by the 10th Amendment (such as a state's right to let counties within its jurisdiction secede from the state and form a new state, as what happened with VA/WV).
So WHY should it be this way for the Counties, but not for the States??
Don't contradict yourself now....
Fact is, it is no different, if a State wants OUT, they have the Unenumerated Right to leave with ALL of their Possessions, and the States possessions are few, such as ALL of the LANDS within its Borders, All of the State Citizens
(Art IV, Section 2), and it's Govt Intact....
The people are the sovereign.
No, the State is the Sovereign, The People Vs John Doe, ever heard of it??
Each Individually have Rights, called Individual Rights and Each Right is Singular unto itself, but we all have the exact same Rights, from US these Rights are loaned to our States for Governance, and then the States ALLOW or TOLERATE the Federation to have LIMITED and Enumerated PRIVILEGES, which WE can push our State Govts into amending, by Law...
But the Constitution also prohibits the states from certain actions, and furthermore vests certain powers in the federal government that give it sovereignty.
The Federations ""Sovereignty"", is mainly Exterior to the States, on the Interior, it has none, it MAY have Superior Claim such as a Crime that crosses State Lines, or Commerce that crosses State Lines, etc., BUT it holds No innate Sovereignty unto itself, that is specifically GRANTED to it....
They agreed to the Constitution. And in 1860, some of the people decided that they didn't want to live by the Constitution anymore so they rebelled against their duly elected local officials, their state governments and the federal government, against the Constitution and laws governing this country.
Yes, a Voluntary Agreement, to a Voluntary Contract, which means they can LEAVE that Contract any time they wish, that is basic contractual Law....
But there was NO Rebellion by VIRGINIA against anything, they simply wanted OUT of the Contract, and to move back under the Articles of Confederation...
The ""Rebellion"" as you say, Against Local Duly elected Officials, their State Govt, is correct, some 20,000 Masons did exactly that, and in doing that, yes, they rebelled against the still in power, U.S. Constitution, and went off on a tangent to create WV....
And as you say, if they didn't Like it, why didn't THEY just move to a different State, like maybe Africa??
That's the club's property, a club which you no longer want to be a part of. Nobody in 1860 was forcing anyone to stay in the USA.
Right, the STATES are the Members of the Club, and as they MADE the Club, they get to LEAVE the club, and leave it WITH ALL OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY, that being the LANDS ALL of the Lands within their Borders, even the parts they ALLOWED/Tolerated, the Federation to use, the State Citizens, and anything else that is theirs....
But to leave the Union, only moves them BACK into the Articles of Confederation, it does NOT remove them from that Contract, which made them Unruleable....
P.S., it had nothing to do with Lincoln getting [S]Elected, it was ALL about States Rights, and no matter how you look at it, States Rights are Paramount to Federal Rights, it's the same argument as Where your feelings try to stomp on my Rights....
the Federation CANNOT OWN neither a ""State"" nor any part thereof....
Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
The Federation is LOANED or ALLOWED, but mainly TOLERATED to have small pieces of Land for Forts, Magazines and other needful things, the LAND is still OWNED by the State therein....
Incorrect. Land ceded to the federal government is permanent, unless retroceded, which is debatable as to the constitutionality of such an action. I contend that it would not be constitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress with any power to retrocede land back to the state, or to any other state for that matter. Giving Congress such an ability would make for a vulnerable situation just waiting for nefarious actors to exploit for gain. Here's a good article looking at such a question about land being ceded and "ownership", in the case of Ft. Sumter. This is a really important matter when applied to the issues with the District of Columbia. I'd argue that the retrocession of the area of DC west of the Potomac back to Virginia in 1847 was unlawful. If you know your history behind the event, you'd know who pushed that action and why... hint, dealt with the issue slavery.
And when it comes to the Federal Constitution, Treaties and such, as being the supreme Law of the Land, those things can be annulled within each State by legislative decree, and there isn't one single thing the U.S. Govt can DO about it....
There is no "state right" of "nullification" in the Constitution. States could of course, conduct a Convention of the states and amend the Constitution to override Congress, but they don't have any such unilateral "veto" power as you imply. States can choose to ignore federally enacted legislation, treaties and other measures taken in accordance with the Constitution, and the federal government can wield the power of the military to enforce the law. See what happened during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, during Reconstruction and desegregation. Ask Governor Wallace about how successful he was at "nullifying" the supremacy of the federal government in the issue of enforcement of the 14th amendment against state governments violating it. What states CAN do, is challenge the legality of federal statutes in court, and they can exercise coalition building with other states to repeal bad legislature or enact new legislation. As far as the theories of "nullification", even the authors of the VA and KY Resolutions (Jefferson and Madison), were very clear that they objected to Calhoun's secession theory of unilateral withdrawal from the Union.
As for whether the Crown Gave up the colonies willingly or otherwise, it is painfully obvious it was done begrudgingly in the Treaty of Paris of 1783,
Well of course the British King would do so begrudgingly. Kind of sucks having to admit to losing a war amirite? Interestingly though, the Crown, or more specifically special interests, didn't actually stop the war to regain the former American colonies. That's how we ended up with America's Second War of Independence from 1812-1815. In reality, we never really stopped being at war with the British, or rather the British never ceased to stop making war upon the USA. The 1783 treaty was more or less a temporary truce.
where he gave them up individually, by name, and not all as just one grouping, he recognized them to be each a Sovereign Nation like France, Spain, etc, and EQUAL to those Nations....
Really have to stop just making things up hoping that people who didn't already know the facts would blindly believe you.... from the Treaty itself:
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, [...] and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore...
Dude literally referred to the new nation BY ITS NAME, as stated by the Articles of Confederation which established it. He did 18 times over the text of the treaty. The listing of the states
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
viz / adverb: short for the Latin videlicet, meaning "in other words" (used to introduce a gloss or explanation).
He had to acknowledge what the USA included, which at the time and from HIS perspective was 12 "sovereign and independent states." His view of what he thought the nature of the governance of the USA to be, doesn't change what the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation actually state. Even before the Constitution, the principle of dual sovereignty was already declared within the Articles of Confederation:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Translation: whatever sovereignty IS delegated to the federal government of the USA, would be explicitly stated so in the governing bylaws of the country, which at first was the Articles and then the Constitution. Though the sovereignty delegated to the Confederation Congress wasn't as expansive as it would be in the Constitution, just look at all of those powers granted to the Congress, and all of the prohibitions placed on the "independent" states. It's not hard to read....
NEXT Articles of Association, at best are a Letter of Intent, and just like any letter of Intent, in Business Law, it cannot be held up in Court, nor can it be forced into any form of Contract, it is only INTENT and not solidified Agreement....
Correct, to an extent. Which is why I say that the Articles of Association of 1774 represent the creation of the Union, while the nation itself was legally created by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Of note, from 1774 to 1776, the colonies did a pretty damn good job honoring the conditions of their agreement.
So after that, comes the Various Constitutions vis., Massachusetts Constitution, written in 1787, Virginia Constitution 1776, etc, ALL of the NEW NATIONS had their own Constitutions BEFORE the U.S. was ratified into a thing/Corporation....
The Continental Congress approved the AoC on November 15, 1777. Even though the obvious delays caused by the war resulted in the states being unable to ratify the AoC until 1781, they functionally governed the new nation. Whatever was stated in the various state constitutions asserting independence from the British Empire and sovereignty, was superseded by the ratification of the AoC and later the Constitution.
So WHY should it be this way for the Counties, but not for the States?? Don't contradict yourself now....
Don't blame me for what the Constitution says and doesn't say. I didn't write it.
Fact is, it is no different, if a State wants OUT, they have the Unenumerated Right to leave with ALL of their Possessions, and the States possessions are few, such as ALL of the LANDS within its Borders, All of the State Citizens (Art IV, Section 2), and it's Govt Intact....
Maybe in your fantasy world, but here in reality, they are two different cases. The states are bound by the terms of the Constitution, and previously the Articles, because they agreed to them. The governing law doesn't explicitly give any state a constitutional right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union and sunder the compact to which all of the other states are equal party. SC doesn't get to tell every other state that the nature of the USA is going to be changed to fit their liking. The Constitution however, says nothing about whether the inhabitants of the individual states are perpetually bound to remain citizens of said state, nor prohibit a state from permitting its inhabitants to approve leaving the state to form a new entity, nor ceding land to the federal government to be established as a new state. Again, land ceded (not "loaned"... words have meaning, use them correctly) to the federal government, is not the property of the state but of the entire national, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
No, the State is the Sovereign, The People Vs John Doe, ever heard of it??
Such a statement is quite literally the statism of monarchy or communism. It's about as anti-American a claim as one could make. Wrong. The PEOPLE are the ultimate sovereign (subject to God, of course).
Each Individually have Rights, called Individual Rights and Each Right is Singular unto itself, but we all have the exact same Rights, from US these Rights are loaned to our States for Governance, and then the States ALLOW or TOLERATE the Federation to have LIMITED and Enumerated PRIVILEGES, which WE can push our State Govts into amending, by Law...
Given the increase in irrational broken English, I'm slowly beginning to believe that you are either not actually an American, or you're a bot.
Yes, a Voluntary Agreement, to a Voluntary Contract, which means they can LEAVE that Contract any time they wish, that is basic contractual Law....
You can voluntarily enter into a contract with a man to paint his house, under the terms that he pays you a deposit and then you paint the house before he pays the remaining compensation. You are bound by the terms of the contract. You don't get to just say "nah, thanks for the deposit but I'm just going to unilaterally void our contract because you're a meanie poo poo head." That is basic contract law, which it's quite clear that you've never actually studied, let alone practiced.
But there was NO Rebellion by VIRGINIA against anything, they simply wanted OUT of the Contract...
There was rebellion by Virginians (and South Carolinians, Georgians, Texans etc), by Americans, that was aided and abetted by sitting state governments, thus rendering them illegitimate due to their treasonous acts.
to move back under the Articles of Confederation...
Which was quite literally never the stated intention of any rebel. Even if hypothetically somebody actually argued all they wanted was to repeal the Constitution and revert back to the AoC, as evidenced earlier, there's still dual sovereignty enshrined in the AoC! No, what the rebels wanted, was a Constitution that explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, the right to own human beings in perpetuity, based solely on skin color. The secession officers made that very clear. The rebel Constitution of the so-called Confederacy made it so. In fact, that Constitution ironically gave MORE power to a more centralized national government. Actually makes sense given that the rebels weren't actually fighting over "states rights" but their complaint that the federal government didn't do a strong enough job protecting what they believed was their rights to own people.
P.S., it had nothing to do with Lincoln getting [S]Elected, it was ALL about States Rights, and no matter how you look at it, States Rights are Paramount to Federal Rights, it's the same argument as Where your feelings try to stomp on my Rights....
Man, you drank that Lost Cause kool-aid hard. Put down the bottle. Crack open a real book. Read actual primary documents. Jubal Early would be proud
****>Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
You keep saying that the States have no Right to Leave the "Union", this means that the Union specifically OWNS them...
Incorrect. Land ceded to the federal government is permanent, unless retroceded, which is debatable as to the constitutionality of such an action.
Ok, so this is where things SEEM to get muddled a bit, with part of it being in International Law, The Law of Nations, and Contractual Law....
Partially right, but that view is incorrect. as that land was Originally, per the thirteen Colonies, or thirteen NATIONS, was, owned by them Exclusively, IF you are able to apply the Equality Clause to ALL States, and stay within the borders of Law....
"There is no "state right" of "nullification" in the Constitution."
Correct, the States cannot Null any part of the Constitution, but the CAN nullify anything that is outside it, such as Gun laws, Legal Abortion[MURDER], Legalized Invasion, aka DACA, Almost anything by Presidential EO, and soo much other stuff.... It's a 10th Amendment thing....
You keep saying that the States have no Right to Leave the "Union", this means that the Union specifically OWNS them...
No, it doesn't.
Ok, so this is where things SEEM to get muddled a bit, with part of it being in International Law, The Law of Nations, and Contractual Law....
The laws of the USA alone, govern the USA.
as that land was Originally, per the thirteen Colonies, or thirteen NATIONS, was, owned by them Exclusively, IF you are able to apply the Equality Clause to ALL States, and stay within the borders of Law....
Sure, originally state land was state land, the exclusive property of said states. But when states ceded part of their land to the federal government, it became forever the property of the nation, of the USA, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The District of Columbia is a perfect example. Also, the original or present status of the ownership of land, doesn't change the reality that per the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution, the federal government was delegated with exclusive authorities in certain areas in which it would retain and exercise sovereignty.
Correct, the States cannot Null any part of the Constitution, but the CAN nullify anything that is outside it, such as Gun laws, Legal Abortion[MURDER], Legalized Invasion, aka DACA, Almost anything by Presidential EO, and soo much other stuff.... It's a 10th Amendment thing....
Sure, states can attempt to "nullify" (a term you've yet to define), e.g. ignore federal legislation that violates the Constitution. But it's not a "right", like the President has the right to veto legislation he believes to be unconstitutional or imprudent, and the Congress has a right to override that veto. But a single state legislature doesn't have any "right" to "nullify" (what you imply to be akin to a veto) a law they disagree with. John C. Calhoun and Governor Hayne telling the federal government that they weren't allowed to enforce the tariff, didn't force the Congress or President Jackson to just say "okie dokie! SC can ignore it." Governor Wallace and the Alabama legislature telling the federal government it won't desegregate, didn't stop the federal government from forcing them to obey the law. However, what the states can do, and did in many cases, was work together to get more agreeable representatives from other states elected to Congress, who would change the law to their liking, help get a better president elected, and go to the courts to challenge laws believed to be unconstitutional. The states could even convene to ratify amendments to the Constitution. These are all legal, constitutional remedies for checking federal overreach.
I agree that a lot of the items you mentioned, are unconstitutional. Most gun laws are illegal, although originally the 2nd only restricted the Congress from enacting federal gun laws. However, if we apply the incorporation doctrine of the 14th (a favorite of the Left to try and twist), then that prohibition would apply to state governments as well (so much for "sole state sovereignty" eh ;) ). Of course most state gun laws actually violate their own state constitutions, which is where legal challenges should be focused. Yes, abortion is murder. Yes, refusal to enforce immigration and national defense laws, is criminal negligence and a violation of ones constitutional oath. I wish more states would do something about resisting and undoing these abuses. It would seem that many in the Republican establishment don't really care much about these principles eh?
Ok, so is it possible, for YOU to keep Emotions out of the Conversation please....
You aren't the First CollAge Professor I have argued with on this subject, and I have no restrictions on arguing specifics, but the whole:: ""The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere"", thing is rather counterproductive and simply just takes up lots of space, and I've read that stuff for Years, I get it, you hate, you enjoy hating, you really don't like the idea that someone, anyone would argue STATES RIGHTS FOR the Southern States, because they owned Slaves, all while ignoring that there were almost as many SLAVES in the Fucking Northern States, and also while ignoring that the Abolition of Slavery was a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE, not a fucking Federal Issue....
Cattle, or Chattel, it doesn't matter....
Both are living beings that are OWNED by other living beings....
Your HATRED of the south is unjustified, because the STATE you were Born in, also had SLAVES, hate yourself for not doing anything about that, but stop hating other Americans for being SLOW to action on pushing for the End of Slavery in their own States. You don't see me going to New York and screaming at everyone for not walking around with a gun on their hip, and yet where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to see five or six guns anywhere at one time....
I know Slavery is bad, BUT, Slavery has been part of Humanity for LONGER than Written History, and it is STILL happening all around the fucking Planet, so, if you must HATE, hate the ones who SUPPORT Slavery TODAY, and just look at American History as a chance to learn and grow....
And as YOU so pointedly stated ""Onlychildren resort to temper tantrums""...
I'll try to answer parts of your comments above in my next post....
you really don't like the idea that someone, anyone would argue STATES RIGHTS FOR the Southern States, because they owned Slaves, all while ignoring that there were almost as many SLAVES in the Fucking Northern States,
I don't like people distorting the truth of history. I have always defended states' rights, in accordance with the Constitution. The irony is that the rebels in 1860 actually argued against states' rights. Just read the secession documents and publications of the fireeaters at the time. They were very clear that their grievance was that the free states, by enacting state laws protecting the inhabitants of their jurisdiction against illegal kidnapping, were somehow violating their "constitutional rights" (not in the Constitution) to cross state lines and abduct any black person without any proof that they were indeed an escaped slave. The rebels were pissed that the federal government, from their perspective, wasn't doing enough to enforce that Fugitive Slave Act. The rebels didn't want stronger state governments and a weaker federal government. Quite on the contrary, they demanded a stronger federal government that would protect slavery, not only where it existed at the time, but also expanded west into the territories, throughout the rest of the United States, and even for the country to acquire more southern territory (originally Mexico, which was quite successful, sadly, and then Cuba, in particular). And of course, when they formed their "new" constitution, they basically copied the US Constitution, but explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, and strengthened their fantasy central government's power to administrate the so-called Confederacy. In 1860, there were 0 chattel slaves in the northern free states. On the contrary, there were nearly 4 million slaves throughout the southern and middle states where the practice was legal, an increase of 800k (22%) from 1850, and the most numerous population of slaves in the nation's history.
and also while ignoring that the Abolition of Slavery was a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE, not a fucking Federal Issue....
Within the states where slavery existed, yes, it was a states rights issue. But in the territories that would become new states, it was 100% a federal issue. However, the rebels didn't actually see it that way, at least, they wanted it to be a states rights issue for new states (when the Constitution determined otherwise), but then they wanted it to be a federal issue when it came to the demand for the federal government to usurp the protective laws of the free states, in stronger enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. See prior paragraph.
Your HATRED of the south is unjustified,
I don't hate "the south." But I do strongly oppose idiots and those who would attempt to lie about history.
because the STATE you were Born in, also had SLAVES
In my home state of New York, abolition started in 1799 and the end of all gradual emancipation occurred in 1827. How does that fact impact my understating of history? Interesting angle with the attempted psychoanalysis though.
hate yourself for not doing anything about that,
What was I going to do at a time in which I didn't exist?
but stop hating other Americans for being SLOW to action on pushing for the End of Slavery in their own States.
I don't generally hate my fellow Americans. But I do despise liars and manipulators, especially when it comes to gaslighting about our history. I also despise those who would engage in rebellion against this country for the most unholy of causes, then lie about it to avoid having to own up to their sins.
You don't see me going to New York and screaming at everyone for not walking around with a gun on their hip, and yet where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to see five or six guns anywhere at one time....
What does this analogy have to do with history and the condemnation of bad dudes from history doing bad things? You imply as if I somehow hate you because you apparently live in one of the former rebel states. I don't hate you. But I do oppose your absurd defense of the Lost Cause apostles.
I know Slavery is bad, BUT, Slavery has been part of Humanity for LONGER than Written History, and it is STILL happening all around the fucking Planet, so, if you must HATE, hate the ones who SUPPORT Slavery TODAY,
Yeah. It's bad. Always has been, everywhere it existed and continues to exist. It would be great if the rest of the world wouldn't lecture the USA on our past sins, and ignore the slavery imposed by Islamic Arabs onto Europeans and Christians, or of Africans onto other tribes of Africans, or of Europeans onto colonized indigenous groups, or ignore the slavery that continues today. The USA is an easy target. Apparently the critics don't see much to gain by condemning Spain and Portugal who actually trafficked the vast majority of African slaves brought into the western hemisphere, to the Caribbean and South America.
and just look at American History as a chance to learn and grow....
Take some of your own medicine and be willing to learn about how evil people were able to dupe useful idiots into supporting an illegal rebellion against their lawful government, in defense of an evil institution. I realize this is a hard truth to accept, and free yourself from the Lost Cause gaslighting that was used to successfully indoctrinate you. As Q pointed out, WHO pushed the Lost Cause propaganda? Democrats. Why? To make well-meaning patriots look like idiots so that people won't take them seriously.
And as YOU so pointedly stated ""Onlychildren resort to temper tantrums""...
Says the apparent adult dropping 3 f-bombs in a thread on an internet forum. My statement stands.
Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Law is a FORCE, it has NO EMOTION it at best, and under the best of intentions, is only FORCE with direction....
I agree with you, I do not like anyone distorting the Truth about History in any direction that leads to one side or the other as being more Moral or Superior or whatever....
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends....
Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Emotion, like the random ALL-CAPS usage? You're the one exhibiting quite a lot of emotion in this debate. Indeed, the law doesn't care how you feel. Which is why I keep referring to it.
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
Sure, which is why I sympathize with the majority of the rebels, who were duped into stupidly supporting and dying for an unjust cause. Like Lincoln and Grant, I would have urged mercy for the dupes (majority). Only the rebel ringleaders should have been punished with any level of severity... I think that the 14th's prohibition of being allowed to serve in government was fair, although there should have been no opportunity for those rights to ever be restored. Look what happened, after Reconstruction, former rebel Dems stole elections in the former rebel states and legalized themselves back into power. Where I disagree with Lincoln, is that the top ringleaders, including those guilty of treason (violating their constitutional oaths... former federal office holders and military), should have been more harshly punished. Death sentence or at the least, exile for the top rebel leaders. I contend that because the penalties weren't harsh enough, and not enough examples were made, that allowed the former rebels to basically return to a "legalized" system of slavery in the former rebel states for another 100 years.
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Actually, the real fireeaters are the ones pulling the strings to sucker average people to join and support terrorists like ANTIFA and BLM. Follow the money. Who funds these groups. Modern fireeaters have vastly improved their ability to hide in the shadows, though with the digital age, it has also become more possible to identify, expose and catch them.
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends.... For now, I'ma Watch the last episodes of TDW.... Laters my Fren....
By all means, make every effort you desire. I can dance all day and happy to do it. Iron sharpens iron.
Asked and already answered in prior reply.
Already answered in prior reply. The states entered into a compact, the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Articles of Confederation (eventually replaced by an improved Constitution) binding each other into one Union, a new nation.
Misrepresenting what people said, let alone fabricating words never said, ain't cool my man. Never contended that the states are "owned" by anyone. I said the states are bound by the Constitution, and all federal laws duly authorized under it, which do not violate it. These were the terms of the club agreed to by the members, those representing the states party, as chosen by the people, when the Declaration of Independence was approved, the Articles of Confederation ratified, and then the Constitution ratified.
If you want to leave the Country Club (better analogy than the fictitious line from the character of George Pickett in the movie Gettysburg, calling it a "gentlemen's club"), nobody is stopping you. But if you're rescinding your membership, then you don't get to come use the golf course or use the pool, let alone tear up the grass or piss in the pool, and you certainly don't get to take all of the beer from the bar on your way out. That's the club's property, a club which you no longer want to be a part of. Nobody in 1860 was forcing anyone to stay in the USA. The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere (they previously had their sights on Cuba and elsewhere in South America). But they didn't. Instead of waiting until the next Board Election, they went out and did doughnuts on the greens, took dumps in the pool, drank all the beer, and refused to leave the clubhouse, acting as if it was their right to be a shithead.
Same applies today. Nobody is forced to stay here. If you hate this country so much, get on a plane or ship and leave. Our course conditions might be a little rough right now, it sucks that the pool is closed and the bartender isn't very good, but the Board can always be replaced and the problems fixed. If the Board is currently being occupied by fraudsters, well then we seek judicial remedy.
But what we don't do, is be like the rebel shits of 1860, who ironically and hypocritically were descendants of those who condemned the "Yankees" only 50 years prior for threatening to leave the Union in response to Mr. Madison sucking the nation in a bullshit war with the British, which was arguably a constitutional violation (not Congress's declaration of war, but the unlawful shenanigans that created the situation).
Only children resort to temper tantrums.
I love that you brought up the Supremacy Clause and Law of the Land Clause, because IF we are to have a ""Dual Sovereignty"", then the Federation CANNOT OWN neither a ""State"", nor any part thereof....
The Federation is LOANED or ALLOWED, but mainly TOLERATED to have small pieces of Land for Forts, Magazines and other needful things, the LAND is still OWNED by the State therein....
And when it comes to the Federal Constitution, Treaties and such, as being the supreme Law of the Land, those things can be annulled within each State by legislative decree, and there isn't one single thing the U.S. Govt can DO about it....
As for whether the Crown Gave up the colonies willingly or otherwise, it is painfully obvious it was done begrudgingly in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, where he gave them up individually, by name, and not all as just one grouping, he recognized them to be each a Sovereign Nation like France, Spain, etc, and EQUAL to those Nations....
NEXT Articles of Association, at best are a Letter of Intent, and just like any letter of Intent, in Business Law, it cannot be held up in Court, nor can it be forced into any form of Contract, it is only INTENT and not solidified Agreement....
So after that, comes the Various Constitutions vis., Massachusetts Constitution, written in 1787, Virginia Constitution 1776, etc, ALL of the NEW NATIONS had their own Constitutions BEFORE the U.S. was ratified into a thing/Corporation....
So WHY should it be this way for the Counties, but not for the States?? Don't contradict yourself now....
Fact is, it is no different, if a State wants OUT, they have the Unenumerated Right to leave with ALL of their Possessions, and the States possessions are few, such as ALL of the LANDS within its Borders, All of the State Citizens (Art IV, Section 2), and it's Govt Intact....
No, the State is the Sovereign, The People Vs John Doe, ever heard of it??
Each Individually have Rights, called Individual Rights and Each Right is Singular unto itself, but we all have the exact same Rights, from US these Rights are loaned to our States for Governance, and then the States ALLOW or TOLERATE the Federation to have LIMITED and Enumerated PRIVILEGES, which WE can push our State Govts into amending, by Law...
The Federations ""Sovereignty"", is mainly Exterior to the States, on the Interior, it has none, it MAY have Superior Claim such as a Crime that crosses State Lines, or Commerce that crosses State Lines, etc., BUT it holds No innate Sovereignty unto itself, that is specifically GRANTED to it....
Yes, a Voluntary Agreement, to a Voluntary Contract, which means they can LEAVE that Contract any time they wish, that is basic contractual Law....
But there was NO Rebellion by VIRGINIA against anything, they simply wanted OUT of the Contract, and to move back under the Articles of Confederation...
The ""Rebellion"" as you say, Against Local Duly elected Officials, their State Govt, is correct, some 20,000 Masons did exactly that, and in doing that, yes, they rebelled against the still in power, U.S. Constitution, and went off on a tangent to create WV....
And as you say, if they didn't Like it, why didn't THEY just move to a different State, like maybe Africa??
Right, the STATES are the Members of the Club, and as they MADE the Club, they get to LEAVE the club, and leave it WITH ALL OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY, that being the LANDS ALL of the Lands within their Borders, even the parts they ALLOWED/Tolerated, the Federation to use, the State Citizens, and anything else that is theirs....
But to leave the Union, only moves them BACK into the Articles of Confederation, it does NOT remove them from that Contract, which made them Unruleable....
P.S., it had nothing to do with Lincoln getting [S]Elected, it was ALL about States Rights, and no matter how you look at it, States Rights are Paramount to Federal Rights, it's the same argument as Where your feelings try to stomp on my Rights....
Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
Incorrect. Land ceded to the federal government is permanent, unless retroceded, which is debatable as to the constitutionality of such an action. I contend that it would not be constitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress with any power to retrocede land back to the state, or to any other state for that matter. Giving Congress such an ability would make for a vulnerable situation just waiting for nefarious actors to exploit for gain. Here's a good article looking at such a question about land being ceded and "ownership", in the case of Ft. Sumter. This is a really important matter when applied to the issues with the District of Columbia. I'd argue that the retrocession of the area of DC west of the Potomac back to Virginia in 1847 was unlawful. If you know your history behind the event, you'd know who pushed that action and why... hint, dealt with the issue slavery.
There is no "state right" of "nullification" in the Constitution. States could of course, conduct a Convention of the states and amend the Constitution to override Congress, but they don't have any such unilateral "veto" power as you imply. States can choose to ignore federally enacted legislation, treaties and other measures taken in accordance with the Constitution, and the federal government can wield the power of the military to enforce the law. See what happened during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, during Reconstruction and desegregation. Ask Governor Wallace about how successful he was at "nullifying" the supremacy of the federal government in the issue of enforcement of the 14th amendment against state governments violating it. What states CAN do, is challenge the legality of federal statutes in court, and they can exercise coalition building with other states to repeal bad legislature or enact new legislation. As far as the theories of "nullification", even the authors of the VA and KY Resolutions (Jefferson and Madison), were very clear that they objected to Calhoun's secession theory of unilateral withdrawal from the Union.
Well of course the British King would do so begrudgingly. Kind of sucks having to admit to losing a war amirite? Interestingly though, the Crown, or more specifically special interests, didn't actually stop the war to regain the former American colonies. That's how we ended up with America's Second War of Independence from 1812-1815. In reality, we never really stopped being at war with the British, or rather the British never ceased to stop making war upon the USA. The 1783 treaty was more or less a temporary truce.
Really have to stop just making things up hoping that people who didn't already know the facts would blindly believe you.... from the Treaty itself:
Dude literally referred to the new nation BY ITS NAME, as stated by the Articles of Confederation which established it. He did 18 times over the text of the treaty. The listing of the states
viz / adverb: short for the Latin videlicet, meaning "in other words" (used to introduce a gloss or explanation).
He had to acknowledge what the USA included, which at the time and from HIS perspective was 12 "sovereign and independent states." His view of what he thought the nature of the governance of the USA to be, doesn't change what the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation actually state. Even before the Constitution, the principle of dual sovereignty was already declared within the Articles of Confederation:
Translation: whatever sovereignty IS delegated to the federal government of the USA, would be explicitly stated so in the governing bylaws of the country, which at first was the Articles and then the Constitution. Though the sovereignty delegated to the Confederation Congress wasn't as expansive as it would be in the Constitution, just look at all of those powers granted to the Congress, and all of the prohibitions placed on the "independent" states. It's not hard to read....
Correct, to an extent. Which is why I say that the Articles of Association of 1774 represent the creation of the Union, while the nation itself was legally created by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Of note, from 1774 to 1776, the colonies did a pretty damn good job honoring the conditions of their agreement.
The Continental Congress approved the AoC on November 15, 1777. Even though the obvious delays caused by the war resulted in the states being unable to ratify the AoC until 1781, they functionally governed the new nation. Whatever was stated in the various state constitutions asserting independence from the British Empire and sovereignty, was superseded by the ratification of the AoC and later the Constitution.
Don't blame me for what the Constitution says and doesn't say. I didn't write it.
Maybe in your fantasy world, but here in reality, they are two different cases. The states are bound by the terms of the Constitution, and previously the Articles, because they agreed to them. The governing law doesn't explicitly give any state a constitutional right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union and sunder the compact to which all of the other states are equal party. SC doesn't get to tell every other state that the nature of the USA is going to be changed to fit their liking. The Constitution however, says nothing about whether the inhabitants of the individual states are perpetually bound to remain citizens of said state, nor prohibit a state from permitting its inhabitants to approve leaving the state to form a new entity, nor ceding land to the federal government to be established as a new state. Again, land ceded (not "loaned"... words have meaning, use them correctly) to the federal government, is not the property of the state but of the entire national, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
Such a statement is quite literally the statism of monarchy or communism. It's about as anti-American a claim as one could make. Wrong. The PEOPLE are the ultimate sovereign (subject to God, of course).
Given the increase in irrational broken English, I'm slowly beginning to believe that you are either not actually an American, or you're a bot.
You can voluntarily enter into a contract with a man to paint his house, under the terms that he pays you a deposit and then you paint the house before he pays the remaining compensation. You are bound by the terms of the contract. You don't get to just say "nah, thanks for the deposit but I'm just going to unilaterally void our contract because you're a meanie poo poo head." That is basic contract law, which it's quite clear that you've never actually studied, let alone practiced.
There was rebellion by Virginians (and South Carolinians, Georgians, Texans etc), by Americans, that was aided and abetted by sitting state governments, thus rendering them illegitimate due to their treasonous acts.
Which was quite literally never the stated intention of any rebel. Even if hypothetically somebody actually argued all they wanted was to repeal the Constitution and revert back to the AoC, as evidenced earlier, there's still dual sovereignty enshrined in the AoC! No, what the rebels wanted, was a Constitution that explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, the right to own human beings in perpetuity, based solely on skin color. The secession officers made that very clear. The rebel Constitution of the so-called Confederacy made it so. In fact, that Constitution ironically gave MORE power to a more centralized national government. Actually makes sense given that the rebels weren't actually fighting over "states rights" but their complaint that the federal government didn't do a strong enough job protecting what they believed was their rights to own people.
Man, you drank that Lost Cause kool-aid hard. Put down the bottle. Crack open a real book. Read actual primary documents. Jubal Early would be proud
****>Where do you keep getting this idea of "ownership?" I've never once claimed that the USA "owns" any state
You keep saying that the States have no Right to Leave the "Union", this means that the Union specifically OWNS them...
Ok, so this is where things SEEM to get muddled a bit, with part of it being in International Law, The Law of Nations, and Contractual Law....
Partially right, but that view is incorrect. as that land was Originally, per the thirteen Colonies, or thirteen NATIONS, was, owned by them Exclusively, IF you are able to apply the Equality Clause to ALL States, and stay within the borders of Law....
Correct, the States cannot Null any part of the Constitution, but the CAN nullify anything that is outside it, such as Gun laws, Legal Abortion[MURDER], Legalized Invasion, aka DACA, Almost anything by Presidential EO, and soo much other stuff.... It's a 10th Amendment thing....
No, it doesn't.
The laws of the USA alone, govern the USA.
Sure, originally state land was state land, the exclusive property of said states. But when states ceded part of their land to the federal government, it became forever the property of the nation, of the USA, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The District of Columbia is a perfect example. Also, the original or present status of the ownership of land, doesn't change the reality that per the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution, the federal government was delegated with exclusive authorities in certain areas in which it would retain and exercise sovereignty.
Sure, states can attempt to "nullify" (a term you've yet to define), e.g. ignore federal legislation that violates the Constitution. But it's not a "right", like the President has the right to veto legislation he believes to be unconstitutional or imprudent, and the Congress has a right to override that veto. But a single state legislature doesn't have any "right" to "nullify" (what you imply to be akin to a veto) a law they disagree with. John C. Calhoun and Governor Hayne telling the federal government that they weren't allowed to enforce the tariff, didn't force the Congress or President Jackson to just say "okie dokie! SC can ignore it." Governor Wallace and the Alabama legislature telling the federal government it won't desegregate, didn't stop the federal government from forcing them to obey the law. However, what the states can do, and did in many cases, was work together to get more agreeable representatives from other states elected to Congress, who would change the law to their liking, help get a better president elected, and go to the courts to challenge laws believed to be unconstitutional. The states could even convene to ratify amendments to the Constitution. These are all legal, constitutional remedies for checking federal overreach.
I agree that a lot of the items you mentioned, are unconstitutional. Most gun laws are illegal, although originally the 2nd only restricted the Congress from enacting federal gun laws. However, if we apply the incorporation doctrine of the 14th (a favorite of the Left to try and twist), then that prohibition would apply to state governments as well (so much for "sole state sovereignty" eh ;) ). Of course most state gun laws actually violate their own state constitutions, which is where legal challenges should be focused. Yes, abortion is murder. Yes, refusal to enforce immigration and national defense laws, is criminal negligence and a violation of ones constitutional oath. I wish more states would do something about resisting and undoing these abuses. It would seem that many in the Republican establishment don't really care much about these principles eh?
Ok, so is it possible, for YOU to keep Emotions out of the Conversation please....
You aren't the First CollAge Professor I have argued with on this subject, and I have no restrictions on arguing specifics, but the whole:: ""The Lincoln hating, racist, plantation owning, slave holding, power controlling shitheads could have left and tried to preserve their slave system utopia elsewhere"", thing is rather counterproductive and simply just takes up lots of space, and I've read that stuff for Years, I get it, you hate, you enjoy hating, you really don't like the idea that someone, anyone would argue STATES RIGHTS FOR the Southern States, because they owned Slaves, all while ignoring that there were almost as many SLAVES in the Fucking Northern States, and also while ignoring that the Abolition of Slavery was a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE, not a fucking Federal Issue....
Cattle, or Chattel, it doesn't matter....
Both are living beings that are OWNED by other living beings....
Your HATRED of the south is unjustified, because the STATE you were Born in, also had SLAVES, hate yourself for not doing anything about that, but stop hating other Americans for being SLOW to action on pushing for the End of Slavery in their own States. You don't see me going to New York and screaming at everyone for not walking around with a gun on their hip, and yet where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to see five or six guns anywhere at one time....
I know Slavery is bad, BUT, Slavery has been part of Humanity for LONGER than Written History, and it is STILL happening all around the fucking Planet, so, if you must HATE, hate the ones who SUPPORT Slavery TODAY, and just look at American History as a chance to learn and grow....
And as YOU so pointedly stated ""Onlychildren resort to temper tantrums""...
I'll try to answer parts of your comments above in my next post....
I don't like people distorting the truth of history. I have always defended states' rights, in accordance with the Constitution. The irony is that the rebels in 1860 actually argued against states' rights. Just read the secession documents and publications of the fireeaters at the time. They were very clear that their grievance was that the free states, by enacting state laws protecting the inhabitants of their jurisdiction against illegal kidnapping, were somehow violating their "constitutional rights" (not in the Constitution) to cross state lines and abduct any black person without any proof that they were indeed an escaped slave. The rebels were pissed that the federal government, from their perspective, wasn't doing enough to enforce that Fugitive Slave Act. The rebels didn't want stronger state governments and a weaker federal government. Quite on the contrary, they demanded a stronger federal government that would protect slavery, not only where it existed at the time, but also expanded west into the territories, throughout the rest of the United States, and even for the country to acquire more southern territory (originally Mexico, which was quite successful, sadly, and then Cuba, in particular). And of course, when they formed their "new" constitution, they basically copied the US Constitution, but explicitly declared and protected the right of slavery, and strengthened their fantasy central government's power to administrate the so-called Confederacy. In 1860, there were 0 chattel slaves in the northern free states. On the contrary, there were nearly 4 million slaves throughout the southern and middle states where the practice was legal, an increase of 800k (22%) from 1850, and the most numerous population of slaves in the nation's history.
Within the states where slavery existed, yes, it was a states rights issue. But in the territories that would become new states, it was 100% a federal issue. However, the rebels didn't actually see it that way, at least, they wanted it to be a states rights issue for new states (when the Constitution determined otherwise), but then they wanted it to be a federal issue when it came to the demand for the federal government to usurp the protective laws of the free states, in stronger enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. See prior paragraph.
I don't hate "the south." But I do strongly oppose idiots and those who would attempt to lie about history.
In my home state of New York, abolition started in 1799 and the end of all gradual emancipation occurred in 1827. How does that fact impact my understating of history? Interesting angle with the attempted psychoanalysis though.
What was I going to do at a time in which I didn't exist?
I don't generally hate my fellow Americans. But I do despise liars and manipulators, especially when it comes to gaslighting about our history. I also despise those who would engage in rebellion against this country for the most unholy of causes, then lie about it to avoid having to own up to their sins.
What does this analogy have to do with history and the condemnation of bad dudes from history doing bad things? You imply as if I somehow hate you because you apparently live in one of the former rebel states. I don't hate you. But I do oppose your absurd defense of the Lost Cause apostles.
Yeah. It's bad. Always has been, everywhere it existed and continues to exist. It would be great if the rest of the world wouldn't lecture the USA on our past sins, and ignore the slavery imposed by Islamic Arabs onto Europeans and Christians, or of Africans onto other tribes of Africans, or of Europeans onto colonized indigenous groups, or ignore the slavery that continues today. The USA is an easy target. Apparently the critics don't see much to gain by condemning Spain and Portugal who actually trafficked the vast majority of African slaves brought into the western hemisphere, to the Caribbean and South America.
Take some of your own medicine and be willing to learn about how evil people were able to dupe useful idiots into supporting an illegal rebellion against their lawful government, in defense of an evil institution. I realize this is a hard truth to accept, and free yourself from the Lost Cause gaslighting that was used to successfully indoctrinate you. As Q pointed out, WHO pushed the Lost Cause propaganda? Democrats. Why? To make well-meaning patriots look like idiots so that people won't take them seriously.
Says the apparent adult dropping 3 f-bombs in a thread on an internet forum. My statement stands.
Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Law is a FORCE, it has NO EMOTION it at best, and under the best of intentions, is only FORCE with direction....
I agree with you, I do not like anyone distorting the Truth about History in any direction that leads to one side or the other as being more Moral or Superior or whatever....
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends....
For now, I'ma Watch the last episodes of TDW....
Laters my Fren....
Emotion, like the random ALL-CAPS usage? You're the one exhibiting quite a lot of emotion in this debate. Indeed, the law doesn't care how you feel. Which is why I keep referring to it.
Sure, which is why I sympathize with the majority of the rebels, who were duped into stupidly supporting and dying for an unjust cause. Like Lincoln and Grant, I would have urged mercy for the dupes (majority). Only the rebel ringleaders should have been punished with any level of severity... I think that the 14th's prohibition of being allowed to serve in government was fair, although there should have been no opportunity for those rights to ever be restored. Look what happened, after Reconstruction, former rebel Dems stole elections in the former rebel states and legalized themselves back into power. Where I disagree with Lincoln, is that the top ringleaders, including those guilty of treason (violating their constitutional oaths... former federal office holders and military), should have been more harshly punished. Death sentence or at the least, exile for the top rebel leaders. I contend that because the penalties weren't harsh enough, and not enough examples were made, that allowed the former rebels to basically return to a "legalized" system of slavery in the former rebel states for another 100 years.
Actually, the real fireeaters are the ones pulling the strings to sucker average people to join and support terrorists like ANTIFA and BLM. Follow the money. Who funds these groups. Modern fireeaters have vastly improved their ability to hide in the shadows, though with the digital age, it has also become more possible to identify, expose and catch them.
By all means, make every effort you desire. I can dance all day and happy to do it. Iron sharpens iron.
ELE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ
frens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0Qda32IKM