Waddle a écrit:Dans ta bouche, "perhaps" et "should" deviennent des appels...
Alors même que la conclusion de la déclaration dit sur l'état du Texas respectera toujours la constitution.
Quelqu'un qui dirait...
"
Peut-être qu'on
devrait tuer... XX " (je déconseille de compléter..)
Ca ne serait pas un appel non ?
Du tout.
Ca passerait comme une lettre à la poste vis à vis des services de renseignements, n'est-ce pas?
Ca s'est déjà vu selon toi un parti majoritaire dans un Etat qui dit "peut-être que les états respectueux de la loi former une Union d'état qui se conformerait à la Constitution."
A part en 1860 ?
Quant à ta dernière phrase, ça montre que tu ne comprends pas de quoi il est question:
Ils estiment que l'Union actuelle dites "Etats-Unis d'Amérique" ne respecte pas la Constitution, et qu'une autre union la respecterait mieux.
C'est toujours le principe de vérités morales, de vérités propres et individuelles, plutôt qu'une vérité commune.
Pour eux ils sont plus respectueux de la Constitution que les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (et sa Cour Suprême désormais
vendue,
corrompue) et donc veulent créer une union basée sur la Constitution.
C'est .. pardon de la comparaison, exactement comme Londres et Vichy. Chacun se réclame meilleur héritier que l'autre de la IIIe République.
Mais tu ne vas pas me dire quand même que Londres et Vichy n'avaient pas fait sécession les uns avec les autres si ?
Le gouvernement de Vichy quand il apparait ne dit pas.. "oh on est les pantins fantoches de l'Allemagne, la IIIe République on s'en carre, on en a rien à faire".
mais "Philippe Pétain est nommé Président du Conseil de la IIIe République", puis "L'Assemblée Nationale de la IIIe République lui délivre les pleins pouvoirs" puis "moi Philippe Pétain prend au nom des pleins pouvoirs délivrée par la IIIe République, le titre de chef de l'Etat Français."
Bref, c'est au nom de la IIIe République que Pétain est légitime et autocrate.
Tout comme de Gaulle passera 18 mois à travailler entre Londres et l'Afrique du Nord sur une dizaine de longs textes légaux qui justifient que la France Libre est le seul descendant légitime de la IIIe République.
Allez, un petit bonus historique, comment la Caroline du Sud, justifie sa Sécession en 1860 ?
Dit-elle "ah mais j'aime pas la Constitution, je veux rester un méchant, et vous voulez me faire devenir gentil ? ouin ouin" ...
Ou dit-elle "je respecte mieux que vous la Constitution des Etats-Unis, que vous détournez, et au nom de ma pureté, , je me retire des engagements avec l'Union que vous dénaturez, pour revenir à l'ancien traité de Confédération.."
Bah en fait c'est réponse b)..
Cadeau:
DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES
Which
INDUCE AND JUSTIFY
the
Secession of South Carolina
from the
FEDERAL UNION;
and the
ORDINANCE OF SECESSION
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.
In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.
The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.
If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.
By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860
"
Rectitude of our intentions". Tout est là dedans. Une opinion morale qui s'oppose à la vérité commune. Nous sommes plus
purs. Nous sommes les plus fidèles au
Bien (considération moral).
Si tu n'as pas compris pourquoi foncièrement je m'oppose au moralisme depuis 3 ans, parce qu'ils crée des archipels, balkanise le commun en autant de petites iles de croyance, et finalement fait faire sécession au nom de ses certitudes individuelles plus importante que le commun, c'est que tu n'as rien compris à mon propos sur le sujet #BalanceTonPorc. Coincidence, je parlais déjà de
puritanisme. (Marrant non ?)
La Sécession de 1860, ça n'est donc pas "la Constitution on veut plus la respecter".. mais c'est "on est
les plus respectueux, de la Constitution, ceux qui la comprenne
le mieux et elle est trahie par les autres Etats, et il est temps de se détacher de l'Union, pour continuer son esprit dans une autre entité".
Exactement ce que à quoi incite le parti républicain du Texas..
Bref, moi, désolé, connaissant les déclaration de sécession, comme sans doute la plupart des écoliers américains, tout de suite je vois, comme chacun qui a lu le communiqué de presse du parti républicain du Texas, le parallèle.
Tu n'as pas l'air de comprendre que presque chaque fois les guerres, civiles ou inter-factions, naissent de légitimité parallèle. (Exception faite pour les guerres de religion)
Pourquoi tous les conflits qu'on a regroupé sous le terme de la Guerre de Cent Ans ?
La légitimité parallèle.
Et ça commence par un
simple désaccord sur la "réalité".
Ce qui fait la différence entre un souverain en exil et un conflit ou un coup d'état. Le nombre de partisan qui te suivent.
Ca fait la différence entre les Pahlavi en exil, le dit Prince d'Orléans (qui avait interdiction par la loi entre 1886 et 1950 d'être présent sur le territoire français),... et le Napoléon des Cent Jours. Le nombre de partisans.
Ca fait la différence entre les Windsor (issus des Saxe-Cobourg et des Wettin) et ... des souverains fantoches comme Simon Abney-Hastings (descendant de George Plantagenet), ou Lady Caroline Child Villiers et Timothy Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound (descendants de Mary Tudor), ou Teresa Freeman-Grenville (descendante alternative de Mary Tudor) ou le Duc de Bavière, Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern (descendant des Stuart). Le nombre de partisans.
Tous les souverains "fantoches" sont tous aussi légitimes que les Windsor, historiquement, mais ils n'ont pas autant de partisans. La vérité historique nait toujorus des vainqueurs, c'est à dire des partisans. Les partisans font la différence entre les souverains et les would-have-been.
Les partisans, et donc, une croyance. C'est toujours la force d'une croyance qui fait la différence entre les légitimités. Qui pour croire en les Windsor, comme détenteur de la Couronne, tout un peuple. Qui pour croire en le Duc de Bavière, trois tondus...
Ca tombe bien je m'apprêtais à montrer par des exemples édifiants quant à leur réaction duface au de cette nuit, à quel point le mouvement Trumpiste était un mouvement religieux (donc une croyance) avec une certitude, Trump ne peut pas perdre, il ne peut pas se tromper, il ne peut échouer.
Pourquoi un tel mouvement SECTAIRE n'entrainerait pas ses partisans dans la folie d'une guerre civile (froide ou chaude), au vu de l'intensité de leur CROYANCE en leur légitimité.
Après tout, au nom de l'intensité de leur croyance dévoyée, une poignée de SECTAIRE ne nous font-ils pas déjà la guerre. Tout en étant certains d'être légitime ?
Hugues
