Charlottesville Redux

[Boca]

Judge Rules that Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee Statue in Charlottesville is a Protected Monument.

https://godfatherpolitics.com/judge...e-in-charlottesville-is-a-protected-monument/

A judge in Virginia has ruled that the statues of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson standing in Charlottesville are protected monuments that cannot be torn down by the city.

On Monday, Charlottesville Circuit Judge Richard Moore ruled that the Confederate statues are war memorials that are protected by a state law that prevents such memorials from being altered or destroyed, according to CBS 19.

The entire question came about when the town of Charlottesville attempted to destroy the two Confederate monuments that have each stood for nearly 100 years in city parks.

The liberal city council decided it wanted no part of its deep Confederate history. But the plans sparked wide protests both for and against the monuments which grew into a larger protest that drew in dangerous members of the left-wing Antifa and White Nationalists that sparked a riot in 2017.​

So there you have it in a nutshell. As is often the case with elected liberal progressives pushing their divisive anti-American agendas bad stuff happens. Charlottesville was not the first time it led to a death and undoubtedly won't be the last.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

A “war memorial”? More like a treason/insurrection memorial.

;-)

 

[bdtex]

A monument protection law in Georgia was signed and went into effect last Friday.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news...rotecting-confederate-other-monuments/493534/

...

"Sponsored this year by state Sen. Jeff Mullis, the legislation allows local governments to sue vandals who deface monuments for up to three times the value of the damages. To the displeasure of some Democrats, the law also bans moving monuments from a prominent location to a museum."

"If local officials choose to move monuments, they have to put them in "a site of similar prominence." The law is not explicitly about Confederate monuments and applies to all plaques, statues and flags that celebrate religious, political, cultural or military figures."

...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

A monument protection law in Georgia was signed and went into effect last Friday.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news...rotecting-confederate-other-monuments/493534/

...

"Sponsored this year by state Sen. Jeff Mullis, the legislation allows local governments to sue vandals who deface monuments for up to three times the value of the damages. To the displeasure of some Democrats, the law also bans moving monuments from a prominent location to a museum."

"If local officials choose to move monuments, they have to put them in "a site of similar prominence." The law is not explicitly about Confederate monuments and applies to all plaques, statues and flags that celebrate religious, political, cultural or military figures."

...

Wow. Now the government is FORCED to display certain things in a certain way.

What’s next? Red state laws mandating the prominent display of huge photos of Trump? Think about the countries where that is done. Not my kind of countries.

 

[bdtex]

What’s next? Red state laws mandating the prominent display of huge photos of Trump?

Maybe. I won't get all twisted if it happens.

 

[Dawg]

Silent Sam still hidden somewhere in storage after being removed from UNC

 

[now_what]

Judge Rules that Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee Statue in Charlottesville is a Protected Monument.

https://godfatherpolitics.com/judge...e-in-charlottesville-is-a-protected-monument/

A judge in Virginia has ruled that the statues of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson standing in Charlottesville are protected monuments that cannot be torn down by the city.

On Monday, Charlottesville Circuit Judge Richard Moore ruled that the Confederate statues are war memorials that are protected by a state law that prevents such memorials from being altered or destroyed, according to CBS 19.

The entire question came about when the town of Charlottesville attempted to destroy the two Confederate monuments that have each stood for nearly 100 years in city parks.

The liberal city council decided it wanted no part of its deep Confederate history. But the plans sparked wide protests both for and against the monuments which grew into a larger protest that drew in dangerous members of the left-wing Antifa and White Nationalists that sparked a riot in 2017.​

So there you have it in a nutshell. As is often the case with elected liberal progressives pushing their divisive anti-American agendas bad stuff happens. Charlottesville was not the first time it lead to a death and undoubtedly won't be the last.

If you want general lee, Hitler or other American enemies to have statues, have them. But if you go around looking for trouble, sometimes it finds you.

 

[Boca]

A “war memorial”? More like a treason/insurrection memorial.

Secession is neither treason or insurrection. Had Lincoln allowed it there would have been no Civil War. Had King George III allowed American Independence there would have been no Revolutionary War.

Instead they both chose war. The Brits invaded, starting the Revolutionary War at the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. Lincoln bombarded Charleston, South Carolina in 1861 starting the Civil War.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Secession is neither treason or insurrection. Had Lincoln allowed it there would have been no Civil War. Had King George III allowed American Independence there would have been no Revolutionary War.

Instead they both chose war. The Brits invaded, starting the Revolutionary War at the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. Lincoln bombarded Charleston, South Carolina in 1861 starting the Civil War.

Glad to hear that. That seems to open the door to secession by our Blue states so we don’t have to put up with Red state madness.

Where do we sign?

;-)

 

[UPNYA2]

Glad to hear that. That seems to open the door to secession by our Blue states so we don’t have to put up with Red state madness.

Where do we sign?

;-)

AOC's, Pelosi's, offices?

Your local welfare office?

The free abortion clinic?

The unemployment line?

Anti-America rallies?

Anywhere you find dems/libs congregating would be a damned safe guess.

Happy trails, skippy.

 

[EatTheRich]

Secession is neither treason or insurrection. Had Lincoln allowed it there would have been no Civil War. Had King George III allowed American Independence there would have been no Revolutionary War.

Instead they both chose war. The Brits invaded, starting the Revolutionary War at the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. Lincoln bombarded Charleston, South Carolina in 1861 starting the Civil War.

The war started when the states that (unconstitutionally) purported to secede made war on the United States (the definition of treason).

 

[Boca]

Glad to hear that. That seems to open the door to secession by our Blue states so we don’t have to put up with Red state madness.

Where do we sign?

;-)

I'm cool with that. But first you'd have to consolidate. Can't have a West Coast country with claims on the east coast too. Maybe one or the other would offer to become a colony of the other...then there's the problem of passports and visas....
.... and who's going to defend your citizens since there won't be any guns allowed.... probably not worth the effort

 

[UPNYA2]

The war started when the states that (unconstitutionally) purported to secede made war on the United States (the definition of treason).

Well, ACTUALLY, had they been allowed to secede from the Union which they all entered into with reservations, (the agreement that they all had the right to secede should they ever feel the other states were infringing on their individual states rights was actually a major factor in getting all 13 to agree believe it or not), there would have been no war, no "treason".

But all truths aside, may I ask you this;

If, these states, "(unconstitutionally) purported to secede", as you stated here, what might they have done in order to constitutionally purported to secede?​

 

[EatTheRich]

If, these states, "(unconstitutionally) purported to secede", as you stated here, how might they have done din order to constitutionally purported to secede?

Amend the constitution to permit secession. Then seceded using the constitutionally prescribed process.

 

[UPNYA2]

Amend the constitution to permit secession. Then seceded using the constitutionally prescribed process.

Why was/is there any argument when it comes to secession?
Why was/is it even spoken of in conversations concerning the US government?

Our constitution is not a list of things we are permitted to do, it is far too short to be that, correct? So why would it need to be amended when it doesn't say anything about forbidding secession? If it addressed THAT specifically, sure, it would need to be amended.

But it doesn't.

Try again.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I'm cool with that. But first you'd have to consolidate. Can't have a West Coast country with claims on the east coast too. Maybe one or the other would offer to become a colony of the other...then there's the problem of passports and visas....
.... and who's going to defend your citizens since there won't be any guns allowed.... probably not worth the effort

No offense, but we’ll reject your advice on how to set up The United Blue States of America. The whole point is ridding ourselves of Red state madness.

 

[UPNYA2]

No offense, but we’ll reject your advice on how to set up The United Blue States of America. The whole point is ridding ourselves of Red state madness.

Well...……., bye.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Well...……., bye.

Red state leeches will never let us go. Not peacefully anyway.

 

[EatTheRich]

Why was/is there any argument when it comes to secession?
Why was/is it even spoken of in conversations concerning the US government?

Our constitution is not a list of things we are permitted to do, it is far too short to be that, correct? So why would it need to be amended when it doesn't say anything about forbidding secession? If it addressed THAT specifically, sure, it would need to be amended.

But it doesn't.

Try again.

It does forbid secession.
Article 1, section 10 ... states cannot act as sovereign powers
Article 4, section 4 ... the federal government must guarantee all states a republican form of government

 

[UPNYA2]

It does forbid secession.
Article 1, section 10 ... states cannot act as sovereign powers
Article 4, section 4 ... the federal government must guarantee all states a republican form of government

"It does forbid secession."
No, it simply does not.

"Article 1, section 10 ... states cannot act as sovereign powers"​

When a "state" secedes it is no longer a state in the Union which is governed by the Constitution, including this "Article 1, section 10", to which you refer.​

​

"Article 4, section 4 ... the federal government must guarantee all states a republican form of government."​

See the above definition of a 'state" and how it is tied to the US Constitution.​