Sign in or signup

4,292 active users!!Bandwidth
FRIDAY
APR 29, 2016
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -35 sec
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

Breaking News Home | All | Religion | Society | Tech | Choice | FF | SA News
FRONT PAGE  |  4/29/2016
Choice News TUESDAY, NOV 13, 2012  |  180 comments
The petition to let Texas secede from the U.S. to be reviewed by the White House

As of 3:40 p.m. ET, more than 25,000 Texans have already signed the petition on The White House website to let Texas peacefully secede from United States of America and “create its own NEW government.”

The petition, created on Nov. 9, argues for secession.


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
blog.chron.com

  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  The Christian and Government • Pastor John MacArthur | 6/27/2009

   03/14/15  |  Another One Bites the Dust • 2 comments
   03/11/15  |  God Doesn't Want Matt Chandler to be Your Pastor • 21 comments
   01/08/14  |  Christian Post: Warning, this article may offend many Christians • 93 comments
   01/01/14  |  Michelle Obama praises lesbian TV anchor • 17 comments
   12/29/13  |  U.S. Slams 'Conservative Gender Norms' • 377 comments
MORE RELATED ( ) NEWS | MORE..
   04/28/16  |  John Piper: Why Christians Should Bury, Not Cremate Their Dead • 32 comments
   04/27/16  |  CO Supreme Court: Christian Baker Must Bake 'Gay"Wedding Cakes • 24 comments
   04/27/16  |  #BoycottTarget Dominates Top 10 Facebook Trends Three Days in a... • 50 comments
   04/26/16  |  Nationwide Protest Seeks to Abolish Planned Parenthood • 21 comments
   04/25/16  |  NBA Commish: Pushing Men in Women's Bathrooms • 20 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   04/29/16  |  Feedback Friday for 04-29-16 • 1 comments
   04/22/16  |  Feedback Friday for 04-22-16 • 2 comments
   04/19/16  |  SermonAudio Tip: Making the Sermon Player Great Again! • 8 comments
   04/18/16  |  This Friday, April 22 @ 7pm Greenville, SC | The Foundations... • 2 comments
   04/15/16  |  Feedback Friday for 04-15-16
MORE SPECIAL | MORE..
   04/29/16  |  Feedback Friday for 04-29-16 • 1 comments
   04/29/16  |  Transgender child's puberty-blocking drug triggers B.C. Supreme... • 3 comments
   04/29/16  |  Is sex-change treatment Planned Parenthood’s new moneymaker? • 7 comments
   04/29/16  |  Oral Roberts University Case Another Threat to Religious Schools • 11 comments
   04/29/16  |  Want to talk about Jesus? You'll need a permit for that at NC... • 14 comments
OTHER RECENT NEWS | MORE..
COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
Page 1 | Page 2 ·  Found: 180 user comment(s)
News Item11/15/12 4:19 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Very easy... did the Constitution delegate or prohibit this power? It did mention growth after all (i.e. accession)... Look Neil, you've got a great argument ... foreign aggressor attacks US soil ... US wins war and territory ... why chase all these other dead-ends? In any other area of law, if we used forced, perpetual accessions to mutual contracts, "universal law," no catch-all phrases... we'd be in a world of hurt
160

News Item11/15/12 4:10 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Marty wrote:
(2) "The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statez respectively, or to the people." Now, where the confusion for you?
(3) How are my comments about Lincoln Ad Hominem? If a person engages in sophistry ... that person engages in sophistry. Where's the hiccup?
"Sophist" is an abusive term used the way you do, although the term can be neutral in a philosophical context. Anyway, you seem to be assuming that a power reserved to the States includes unilateral secession. How can you claim that w/o committing the same inferential error you attribute to Mr. "Universal Law" Lincoln?
159

News Item11/15/12 4:06 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
(1) I don't disagree with your final point.
(2) "The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statez respectively, or to the people." Now, where the confusion for you?
(3) How are my comments about Lincoln Ad Hominem? If a person engages in sophistry ... that person engages in sophistry. Where's the hiccup?
158

News Item11/15/12 3:51 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Marty wrote:
Actually, a withdrawal clause isn't a dissolution clause. You have a partnership ... one partner leaves ... partnership can continue. This isn't advanced legal theory. Logic was cruel to Lincoln, hence his affinity to sophistry
Now it's my turn to play Logic Referee: Abusive Ad Hominem & Petitio Principii. Please show me where the 10th Amendment says or implies [Universal Law?] anything about withdrawl. What's this "Catch-All" stuff? Too vague. Or what Federal power abuse did the South have in mind regarding President-Elect Lincoln?

Or let's say, proper Ad Hominem, that your construction is correct & Lincoln was wrong. Then the South in effect became an enemy power by initiating hostilities. You start a fight, don't whine "foul" if you get a bloody nose.

157

News Item11/15/12 3:51 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Oh, and divorce isn't forbidden, so why does that example help you?
156

News Item11/15/12 3:49 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Actually, a withdrawal clause isn't a dissolution clause. You have a partnership ... one partner leaves ... partnership can continue. This isn't advanced legal theory. Logic was cruel to Lincoln, hence his affinity to sophistry
155

News Item11/15/12 3:42 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Marty wrote:
Neil,
The 10th employs "catch-all" language. Going into the Constitutional Convention, the States were the Sovereigns. At no point did they surrender sovereignty in a total way. Read the document, the grants of Federal power are clear. If they had given up secession power, Lincoln would supply us with an exact reference to instead if vague references to "universal law." How convenient for him to use a law that no one can read or hear. He is the oracle of universal law for all mankind.
Lincoln argued correctly that it is not in the character of ANY human government to describe legal means for its own dissolution. Governments are perpetual. Thus it does NOT need to be expressly stated, Q.E.D. Now you may not like such reasoning, but don't call the man a tyrant.

Let me put it this way: Should married couples include divorce provisions in their marital agreement? I've never heard of Christians doing this, anyway.

154

News Item11/15/12 3:40 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Neil,

The 10th employs "catch-all" language. Going into the Constitutional Convention, the States were the Sovereigns. At no point did they surrender sovereignty in a total way. Read the document, the grants of Federal power are clear. If they had given up secession power, Lincoln would supply us with an exact reference to instead if vague references to "universal law." How convenient for him to use a law that no one can read or hear. He is the oracle of universal law for all mankind.

153

News Item11/15/12 3:29 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Marty wrote:
Neil,
Tenth Amendment predates the war. Because of the tenth, secession is implied. Racism might be the motive, but targeting a motive instead of an argument is an informal fallacy (i.e. appeal to motive).
I never offered racism as an argument against secession, only as an explanation of motives as to why the South would be so irrational as to secede to solve the "problem" of Lincoln's legitimate (not revolutionary) election. Again, he did *nothing* to warrant any such thing. But if you like, I'll drop it. Nonetheless, where does the 10th Amendment imply secession as a right? Or is it about the Fugitive Slave Law, which was one of the reasons cited by the seceding states?

The Articles of Confederation were closer to the sovereign body concept, but that's not our basic law anymore because it failed.

152

News Item11/15/12 3:24 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Neil,

Tenth Amendment predates the war. Because of the tenth, secession is implied. Racism might be the motive, but targeting a motive instead of an argument is an informal fallacy (i.e. appeal to motive). All that aside, take off the post-war glasses. Before the war, states were considered the sovereign bodies (much as today's European Union). Finally, the legal precedent of Occidental history would suggest someone doesn't give up a right unless it is willing given (high std of proof).

151

News Item11/15/12 3:20 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
If the National Debt is say 10 trillion dollars, and let's say the five states succeed in leaving the union, does that mean that they are no longer responsible for the huge debt? I see that Texas is quite self-sufficient and has a good economy.
150

News Item11/15/12 3:15 PM
Angela Wittman | SW Illinois  Find all comments by Angela Wittman
Commentary: Texas Secession is no joke:
http://www.bnd.com/2012/11/14/2394579/commentary-in-texas-secession.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop
149

News Item11/15/12 3:09 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Marty wrote:
Constitution is silent as far as I know. What the @%$ is Universal Law? Lincoln wasn't appointed King or Emperor, his opinion (though costly in resources and lives) is just that, an opinion. He's engaging in sophistry to justify his actions... ethical or not. He still lacks legal standing
The South engaged in sophistry in arguing that a state could up & leave the Union any time it liked, for that isn't in the Constitution either. What gov't in history has ever had an "escape clause" for malcontents? That was Lincoln's point. And there was no good reason for it anyway. There was a bad reason, however: all the Southern blather about the Constitution was a stalking-horse for their REAL concern: that under an abolitionist gov't, black men could become their social equals, utterly intolerable for most White Men of the day (see Steven Douglass's tactics against Lincoln in their debates). But Lost Causers don't like defending such racism anymore, so I think this is why they cling to the more respectable myth of the Right of Secession.

Alex. Stevens was an early practitioner of this sort of ground-shifting; before the War, secession was over racial subjugation, but after the War, it was only about the Constitution.

148

News Item11/15/12 2:54 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Constitution is silent as far as I know. What the @%$ is Universal Law? Lincoln wasn't appointed King or Emperor, his opinion (though costly in resources and lives) is just that, an opinion. He's engaging in sophistry to justify his actions... ethical or not. He still lacks legal standing
147

News Item11/15/12 2:31 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Marty wrote:
Firing on the fort was justification for retaliation, but otherwise I know of no legal document that took away the right of voluntary withdrawal from a voluntarily entered union
Yet the South had no problem entering the 1847 war with Mexico on far shakier grounds. So it's hypocritical to say Lincoln should've winked at SC's naked military aggression against Ft. Sumter. No gov't worthy of the name could ignore it.

Lincoln's answer re secession, abbreviated (full speech too large to post): "I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void [cf. Gov. Sam Houston]; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States [e.g. Sumter], are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken."

and

"The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution."

146

News Item11/15/12 2:22 PM
Marty | Usa  Find all comments by Marty
Firing on the fort was justification for retaliation, but otherwise I know of no legal document that took away the right of voluntary withdrawal from a voluntarily entered union
145

News Item11/15/12 2:14 PM
Rufus | Fort Worth, TX  Protected NameFind all comments by Rufus
Neil wrote:
... It was a war he never wanted, forced upon him by the South, as his writings & actions make *very* clear.
The War of "Northern Aggression" is a lie. It was a War of Rebellion. The South had no just cause, legally or morally.
The south had every cause legally and morally. A people ought to be free to be free. A people ought to be allowed to choose freely who they desire to associate with or not associate with. The war of northern aggression was not forced upon Lincoln, he could have stayed home. Instead he wanted to preserve a union by force and in the process kill 600,000+ people (most of whom were Christians) in order to preserve a union that folks in the south did not believe was worth preserving. Now that same spirit has extended upon all the nations of the world and all the nations are being joined together through coercion or force. Sovereign states were forced to become one country in the united states, sovereign countries are now being force under one world rule.
144

News Item11/15/12 2:07 PM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Perhaps so, JY; it is a better cause than slavery, I'll warrant.

Here are the words of Rufus's "tyrant":
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it. ... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

143

News Item11/15/12 2:03 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Don't worry, John Y., the North would raise again and crush any rebellion! As I said Texas --Constitutionally-- can divide into five states and then the rebs could have perhaps a couple of states of their own.

There's no perversion like the Romish Church, John Y., Should Roman Catholicism really be classified as a Christian religion? -- No. and Are We Really Catholic Bashing? and the answer to that is also, No.

I would also add, besides no doubt the excellent sermons that SA has listed another one, God's Sovereignty Over Rulers & Nations

142

News Item11/15/12 1:55 PM
John Yurich USA | USA  Find all comments by John Yurich USA
I also believe that another Civil War is in the making. But this time it will not be about slavery. It will be about freedom. States that want to secede from the union because they are tired of the liberals pushing their Satanic agendas of abortion, homosexuality and every other perversion under the sun onto every American vs states that are liberal.
141
There are a total of 180 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Page 1 | Jump to Page : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | last
Last PostTotal
Want to talk about Jesus? You'll need a permit for that at NC...
connor from california: "although this university probably doesn't mind those who..."
-8 min 14 
New poll finds fewer people keep the Sabbath
connor from california: "there were a lot of comments here, i guess it proves this..."
-11 min 135 
Ark Encounter gets tax incentive up to $18.25M
dave from oz: "mike from ny, g'day mate good comment bro, i agree"
-2 hrs 



John Pittman Hey
The Sin of Partisanship

Hypocritical Judgment Rebuked
Sunday Service
Grace Bible Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Lin Brown
This is That

Grace Particular Baptist
Sunday Service
Transcript!Play! | MP3

Dr. Peter Masters
Extensiveness of Conversion

Sunday Evangelistic Message
Metropolitan Tabernacle
Video!Play! | MP4

Sponsor:
2 for 1 Puritan Hard Drive Sale On Now

Rev­iews by Paul Wash­er, Dr. Joel Beeke, Dr. Bauch­am, Rich­ard Benn­ett, Barn­es, et al.
www.puritandownloads.com/sw..

Sponsor: Paul Washer: "Most Useful Bible Study"
www.puritandownloads.com/pa..

SPONSOR | 2,400+

SPONSOR




                   
A proud soul is content with nothing. ... Thomas Brooks

Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal


MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App
Android
Church App
Kindle + Nook
Chromecast TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
BlackBerry | Win
Apple Watch
Android Wear New!
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
Site Notices
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES | ALL
Local Church Finder | Info
MP3 Play & Download
Mobile Apps
Podcasting
Video Support
Live Webcasting
Transcription Service
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI Sites
Domain Redirect
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Sermon Browser
HTML Codes
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BW
JSON API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Upload via Email
Auto-Upload Sermons
Auto-Blog Import
Picasa | FTP | Dropbox
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us | PowerClips
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Support Us | Feedback Fridays New!