I wrote: "Scorpio69er: "If the government itself demonstrably subverts the Constitution, as many on both the left and right have maintained, can that same government use the very Constitution it has subverted as a basis to prevent secession?"

(emphasis in original)"

I meant to put "(emphasis in original)" with respect to this statement by Jackson:

"I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

re: Jackson dismantled the 2nd National Bank because he believed that it had so much power as to threaten the security of the Union.

He was obviously right.

re: He did not, however, ever so much as hint about "leading a revolution" if he was not successful in his goal there.

Since he was in fact successful, we cannot know what he might have done or thought had he failed.

I do not believe that you can say with any degree of certainty what Jackson might do if here were to suddenly be resurrected today. He'd probably die of a heart attack when he saw what had become of the country under central banker rule.

re: What you are talking about here is essentially nullification - the legal theory that state have the right to "nullify" any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional.

No. I'm talking about what many from both ends of the political spectrum agree is de facto subversion of the Constitution by the federal government. Thus my question re: the use of same as a legal pretext to prevent secession. If in fact it has been subverted, then the government has no real legitimacy and cannot then hide behind the Constitution or use it as a means to club anyone into submission.

I think what we're seeing from both left and right is less of a pure secessionist sentiment than a revulsion at how far our government has moved from the Constitution and a genuine desire to return to it. Granted, there are whack jobs on both sides, but when ordinary citizens feel utterly alienated from their government and see it taking actions that the clear majority oppose (like taking trillions of $ of their money for greedy banksters), it leads us to open talk of rebellion.

It's easy to dismiss the fringe elements now, but when that fringe starts becoming the majority as the economy deteriorates further and we're suffering through the Great Depression II, all bets are off.

with putrid communists or fascists.

my tax money goes to support a system that systematically discriminates against me because I am male.

the libertarians in this article had a good point, there is either women marrying men, or women marrying the state. There is no in between.

when women got the vote, women CHOSE to marry the state, making men irrelevant.

hence we get epidemic proportions of fatherless children-- spiritually bereft, mentally poor, perverted, obese, depressed, and cynical.

the counter shock has been that men are revolting against this injustice.

I only WISH men could form a perfect union of a nation. Women seem to care less about things like freedom and justice and more about getting free handouts, punishing those who disagree with them, and imprisoning men's souls into being mere slave workers for the women.

I have little sympathy for women these days. They seem not to care a whit about things like TRUE equality between the sexes, preferring to ensconce themselves as princesses in a culture that can work itself to death for the women. Men have lost numerous reproductive rights under the feminist regimes of recent decades.

When women are missing a right or a privilege, they fight men until the men grant that right. Men are positively fair and just in granting these things to a gender that, by rights, does not deserve fair treatment due to women's very nature.

At least this is the argument I always hear from the women when I tell them I only WISH I could reproduce without having to appeal to women's baser instincts. They tell me, "tough luck, argue it with God for not giving you a vag".

So I say the same in return. You women are missing rights or privileges? Argue it with GOD. and SCREW YOU.

You know, like the ones who think that the Jews blew up the World Trade Center and who keep insisting that Building Seven wasn't seriously damaged and ablaze when it most manifestly was?

And some people are just insane imbeciles for believing the party line.

women got the vote, look how fucked up things are today. This one is no different.

Keep on believing your BIG BROTHER DADDY, fucktard.

How much intellectual dishonesty can you pack into one essay? Very impressive, this.

Lind, you'll be making millions on TV in no time! I have no doubt that your positions will be pursuasive to those who can only stand to spend twelve seconds at a time thinking critically about anything.

I would wager that most people do. And with advances in stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc., there is no reason that human life can extended well beyond its current span.

So, with that Paypal founder guy turning out to be completely crazy, who else can I get to be middleman for my online transactions?

Me: "Jackson dismantled the 2nd National Bank because he believed that it had so much power as to threaten the security of the Union."

Scorpio69er: "He was obviously right."

No that's not obvious - the banking system was not the same then as now. It's amusing however that some claim that nationalized banking is "unamerican" when in fact we had two nationalized banks in the founding and early days of our country.

He did not, however, ever so much as hint about "leading a revolution" if he was not successful in his goal there.

Scorpio69er: "Since he was in fact successful, we cannot know what he might have done or thought had he failed."

He was in fact successful with respect to nullification too, and there again he made it very explicit that he would go to war if need be. Again that was not the case with respect to the 2nd National Bank.

Scorpio69er: "I do not believe that you can say with any degree of certainty what Jackson might do if here were to suddenly be resurrected today."

Some degree of certainty you can, sure. And if one looks at what if valued throughout his history, defending the Union was a top priority.

Me: "What you are talking about here is essentially nullification - the legal theory that state have the right to "nullify" any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional."

Scorpio69er: "I'm talking about what many from both ends of the political spectrum agree is de facto subversion of the Constitution by the federal government."

And again these are essentially the same thing. Nullifacation does not mean "we as a state don't like this law or constitutional interpretation so therefore we reject it." What nullification instead means is "we as a state don't find this this law or constitutional interpretation constitutional, so therefore we reject it."

Which is not unlike the scenario what you are painting, which essentially is "we do not agree with the constitutional interpretation by the government and therefore we reject their rulings on it."

In both scenarios it's about the State saying they don't agree with with Feds with respect to the Constitution and therefore the state rejects is. No question, Jackson would have rejected that stance and gone to war over it.

Anyway,this conversation is interesting but I've gotta run - I have a plane to catch to New Orleans for New Orleans JazzFest.