Procreating Prosperous Posterity IV
by Joe Kelley
10-23-2022

FROM CATALONIA TO CALIFORNIA: SECESSION
IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Tom Ginsburg & Mila Versteeg
“From Catalonia to Kurdistan, Crimea to California, and Scotland to St. Kitts, secession has become a hotly debated political issue. While secessionist disputes appear to hinge on high power politics, they also have an important constitutional dimension. This Article offers a comprehensive exploration of how the world’s constitutions treat secession, and how constitutional secession clauses can affect real-world seces#sionist disputes. Drawing on an original dataset that captures how the world’s constitutions have dealt with secession from 1789 to 2015, we make a number of contributions.”
[law.ua.edu]

In my decades-long vain attempt to justify moral objections to paying known criminals to torture and murder mankind, the subject of legal precedent sends the curious on a quest to discover past experiences that ought not to be ignored by the willfully defenseless ignorant.

The word secession, for example, can mean the same thing as the term conscientious objection, as defenders intend to willfully defend life on earth, peace, harmony, liberty, the pursuit of a reason to keep on living, and the ways and means to actually and expediently manifest real defense in real-time, doing so by discovering and employing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about actionable intelligence concerning clear, and clearer, present, and even more present dangers threatening everything of value, including the children that constitute prosperous posterity.

The word “secession” can also be a runaround talking point deployed in order to keep the defenders talking instead of defending.

Just saying.

Just saying that I conscientiously object to murdering innocent children, in the Huge Thomson Mỹ Lai massacre case, for example, is not the same thing as landing the helicopter and almost fragging the criminals caught red-handed and dead-to-rights in the act of murdering children, or worse.

Arresting the flow of funds flowing to the murderers of children arrests the murdering of children.

Fuck you, pay me, pay your next born to me, and do not question the order to pay.

No child LEFT without exposed behinds.

They rape kids too, sodomy, and other despicable things on your dimes with your ill-informed consent.

If the threat of prosecution does not arrest their progress as they move closer and closer to their next victim, then what might stop them?

Oh, wait, they claim immunity from prosecution, so no threat there, not in the least.

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]
George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

Ten Mile Square?

Conspiracy Theorists dating back to the revolution?

Antiquated legacies?

Legal Fiction warnings, one if by land, two if by sea, depending upon what “is” is?

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

"If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . " Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, January 25, 1788

But Joe, Joe, Joe, reading is fundamentally above my pay grade.

The original republicans that federated under common law jurisdictions did not beg for mercy and they did not FRAG Red-Coats. The Red-Coats were informed in no uncertain terms that secession was the consequence of Red-Coats murdering the people in America, notwithstanding Red-Coats claiming that no means yes.

The Red-Coats were in it for the money, and children too, or they arrested themselves reasonably, as they grew a moral conscience and joined the republicans defending liberty.

National Debt Notes document Taxation Without Representation.

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

Like all “good” frauds, Red-Coats, and Nationalists, Nazis too, no one told me that no means no!

Caveat Emptor