Ron Paul talks about secession...in front of a Confederate flag!

"Secession is a good principle"

Awesome !

Wow. Just wow.....

This is telling !

Not sure I understand the point of this.

You'd like to highlight Ron Paul stating facts?

Secession in America is the same thing as Revolution(with a slightly more peaceful connotation to it).

America was born out of a... wait for it... Revolution.

I'd say it's extremely un-American for any American to not be open to the idea of Secession.

Ron Paul is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans group.

Here's the Confederate Heritage site endorsing him:

Southern Heritage Friendly Candidates for President

Who are the southern friendly candidates for President. Ron Paul candidate for president, honorary member of the SCV for 12 years. Come check out his record on States Rights and the issues. Ron Paul, Ron Paul has previously been endorsed by Dixie Daily News, and the Confederate Partisan.

[link to confederatewave.org]

Paul's unusual position regarding secession goes on.

In his first hearing as Chairman of House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, Paul invited Thomas DiLorenzo to testify. Thomas DiLorenzo, is longtime activist in the neo-Confederate hate group, League of the South (LOS). The LOS advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “Anglo-Celts” – that is, white people. LOS leaders have called slavery “God-ordained” and described segregation as necessary to the racial “integrity” of black and white alike. DiLorenzo also is an economics professor at Baltimore’s Loyola College.

Why Ron Paul invited DiLorenzo to testify at this hearing is anybody's guess.

[link to www.splcenter.org]

What you, and perhaps Ron Paul are suggesting is not constitutional. It is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government.

This was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 in the case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

[link to writ.news.findlaw.com]

Those are the facts. If Ron Paul wants to advocate that secession can be justified, then he is running contrary to the Constitution.

A revolution to remove and replace the government and Constitution of the United States is treason. United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

So because a judge said in 1869 that no providence in the United States may seceded it is written in the constitution?
The constitution is a treaty between states.When a treaty is violated,it can be rendered void.Period.

A revolution to remove and replace the government and Constitution of the United States is treason. United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

So 90% of congress should be in jail?

You links the Southern Policy Law Center? Hahahaha....those dickwads think verterans are terrorist. It's in their MIAC report.

Sorry to quote a group that you don't like, but you can google and find plenty of other references, including the Congressional Record, regarding Ron Paul's invitation to Thomas DiLorenzo to testify. DiLorenzo's association with the pro-secession League of the South is well known.

The original states existed prior to the federal government. It was the states that brought the federal government into existence, not the other way around.

Ergo, states being independent republics that formed a union of their own free will have and will always have an inherent right to secede from such union.

There is also this:

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional.

The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution.

In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution.

The principles stated in the resolutions became known as the "Principles of '98." Adherents argue that the states can judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 argued that each individual state has the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and void. The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 added that when the states determine that a law is unconstitutional, nullification by the states is the proper remedy.

The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 refer to "interposition" to express the idea that the states have a right to "interpose" to prevent harm caused by unconstitutional laws. The Virginia Resolutions contemplate joint action by the states.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Ron Paul is irrelevant.

He has a grand total of 4 delegates.

Stick a fork in him…

Seceding: Where does one logically stop?

"It is all the more curious, incidentally, that while laissez-faireists should by the logic of their position, be ardent believers in a single, unified world government, so that no one will live in a state of 'anarchy' in relation to anyone else, they almost never are.

And once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible 'anarchy,' why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?"

[link to www.lewrockwell.com]

That might be your opinion, and you are certainly free to have that opinion; however, it's not correct according to law. Go back and read what the Supreme Court said in its opinion of Texas v. White back in 1869 - states do not have the right to unilaterally secede. That is set law.

It was convoluted reasoning to reach a predetermined conclusion. The Chief Justice at the time was a Lincoln appointee so I doubt that any other conclusion ever was a possibility. Prior to that time it was fairly well accepted that states were in their rights to secede. Certainly the Constitution as the SCOTUS determines at this oint says no but you should understand that the SCOTUS often turns the Constitution on its head. What the SCOTUS decides the Constitution says often has little relationship to what the actually words say. Of course that does not mean we don't accept the fiction and treat their decisions as constitutionally acceptable.

Maybe because unilateral secession is against US law?

Of course you could always put together an amendment to the Constitution that specially allows that, get it approved by a supermajority in the House and Senate and then get it ratified by the states. Good luck.

the states were put in place to keep the federal or communist government in check, now it's got too big and will eventually take everything you have.

Good job you dumb fucks enjoy your fema camps.

splcenter? isnt that the group that was busted having their fingerprints all over the OKC false flag bombing? yep.. i think it is!!! you may want to source articles with non-traitorous links. you just lost all credibility putting those scumbags on your post.

And you sniveling Ronbots say Ron Paul does not want to return to slavery too. Whatever. I am so glad Ron Paul lost.

The issue in this post is logic/reason, not law.

Doesn't the "NWO" already have plans to divide up the USA into regions?
So wouldn't Ron Paul be actually the facilitator of that, if elected?

Ron Paul can argue for session all he want but the simplest answer is this The south seceded because their states wanted the right to do what the Republican congress was attempting to outlaw across the nation.

Keep Slaves.

It's a lesson in Constitutional law ! Refreshing that he tells is it with the founding fathers intent rather than the mind controlled globalist intent ! We can learn a lot from the wisdom our founding father put into the Constitution ! The IQ were much better before the Globalist started pumping fluoride into everyone brains making them so stupid ! The fluoride actually makes some people think Constitutional thought is dumb !

Ron Paul is not a racist! He wants his slaves to be able to smoke them some pot out on his plantation. Ron Paul is for a pre-civil rights and pre ammendment to the constitution against slavery for America. It is okay to smoke dope if you are one of Ron Paul's slaves but you better buy it with your no minimum wage gold at Uncle Ronnies Company Store with gold or you will be sent to be bound and whipped. The South shall rise again... but most American will not buy it... even in the South.

That may be so and what you want to hear but there won't be any secession or revolution against the bankers only FEMA camps for you.

That's how masonic revolution roll.

what are you trying to say?