South Dakota handed over to Oglala Souix
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
You did.
"Quote:
Do they teach you that arrogance in the Marines?
Heck no... I got that when I took my first breath of USA air."
Fun dialogue, kiddies but I suppose we should get back on topic. Russel Means is not only a great actor (loved him in Last of the Mohegans) but a highly articulate spokes person for his people. After what happened at Wounded Knee in 1972, I am surprised it took so long for the Lakota to stop recognizing all the bogus treaties the US imposed on them and then reneged on.
Watcha trying to do Cupcake? Name one STATE that is exploring the "'right to secede from the US". Do not say Vermont, because the State is not looking into it.
Gee, by golly, I hope the following statement is not true, if it is how backward can Canada be towards its First Nations people? Took ya long enough to try and catch up.
"The only citizens in Canada who did not have full access to basic, fundamental human rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act until June 2008 were First Nations citizens.
Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shielded INAC and band councils from decisions they made against band members. In other words, they were allowed to DISCRIMINATE against First Nations people.
CAP launched a campaign to repeal section 67 so that First Nations people would have access to human rights equal to other Canadians.
Canadian Human Rights Commission :: Resources :: Publications :: Reports
Last edited:
Oh there is always a crowd in Vermont that wants to secede. A small crowd but they make a little noise that is good for a laugh. Even Martha's Vineyard had a small group that wanted to make their little island a nation. An island that is 100% dependant on the mainland.
As i said...there is NO RIGHT FOR STATES TO SECEDE from the United States. They can pour over all the documentation they want and they will find APPOMATTOX at the end.
Montana Could Secede Over Gun Rights Decision
Here’s an interesting take on gun control: When Montana entered into the Union, it did so on the condition that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. Should it be re-interpreted to mean a state’s right to arm its National Guard, then this would place the Second Amendmment further down the list of rights. This, in turn, would violate the pact the state has with the Union (presumably, they value this right highly), and could lead to secession.
Grandinite » Montana Could Secede Over Gun Rights Decision
This next link is even better.
"
Topic: Constitutional Issues
34 and 38 : How to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government
A Constitutional Explanation of how to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government."
34 and 38 : How to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government
Here’s an interesting take on gun control: When Montana entered into the Union, it did so on the condition that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. Should it be re-interpreted to mean a state’s right to arm its National Guard, then this would place the Second Amendmment further down the list of rights. This, in turn, would violate the pact the state has with the Union (presumably, they value this right highly), and could lead to secession.
Grandinite » Montana Could Secede Over Gun Rights Decision
This next link is even better.
"
Topic: Constitutional Issues
34 and 38 : How to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government
A Constitutional Explanation of how to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government."
34 and 38 : How to legally dissolve the U.S. Federal Government
Sherman types would arise all over the place, but it sure would create a few more legal issues. I have to admit, that I never thought that any state had a contract like Montana has.
Now this we can blame Bush for. In 2006, President George W. Bush pushed a Republican-controlled Congress to pass the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section provided that "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines...." In effect, this bill obliterated Posse Comitatus."
Chuck Baldwin -- U.S. Army Troops To Serve As U.S. Policemen?
You had me up to this word, not many (if any) actually turned out to be worth the paper they were written on. How many treaty cases has there been in the US, up here they are still going on (in a manner of speaking as the only progress is the Lawyers pockets are getting bigger)
When representatives of our Gov meet (in secret) with the CEO's of major Corporations to determine the path 'the People' will follow they have expanded just who is the 'subject' and who is the 'master' now includes more than just the Natives. Our rights and protections can be taken away at a moments notice, no matter how many documents that have been signed that say anything different. They are under no more obligation to honor those 'promises' than they were to the Treaties that they signed (kmowing they would be broken at the first opportunity that favored the 'Crown'. They wouldn't have been able to do that if 'the People' had insisted we honor our Treaties with the Natives.
Also hasn't some bills in the US been passed without examination by the same ones who vote on making it legal or not. Canada would do the same if it served the purposes of the Gov.