WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 4 pts

Don't forget Article 1, Section 10 -

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS ACTUALLY INVADED, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Kikesuckers Abbott and DeSantis have no excuses. They can declare a state of war and use their state militaries to repel the organized foreign invasion of their sovereign territory.

They won't because they suck jew cock. They want the foreign hordes to replace White people just as much as the Democrats. They play stupid games by bussing a few dozen illegals to Martha's Vineyard while their states are being over run by thousands every day.

[–] 1 pt

The Constitution doesn't contain any instructions on what to do when half of the population thinks what's happening is NOT and invasion and the other half does.

If we successfully go off calling a horde of spics an invasion it won't be 10 days before some communist governor declares an "invasion" of white supremacy to use their National Guard against their political opponents.

[–] 0 pt

"The Constitution doesn't contain any instructions on what to do when half of the population thinks what's happening is NOT and invasion and the other half does."

Can you read? That Constitution can't be any more plain. Its up to the state government alone to decide if its being invaded, not the Feds, not the Congress, not half the population. That means the governor and the state legislature.

[–] 0 pt

Can you read?

I can read, but it appears that maybe you can't. The Constitution doesn't say the states get to decide what's an invasion. It doesn't say who gets to decide, which means it falls under "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" of Article III, Section 2. In case you hadn't noticed, that means it's the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

[–] 1 pt

They would have to secede and start printing their own money backed by their own oil that they are able to now pump under their own laws.

[–] 1 pt

Republic of Texas was large and wealthy.

[–] 1 pt

Text of Article IV, Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Text of Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[–] 1 pt

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are no longer considered the law of the land...politicians and officials now consider both to be pleas and suggestions they are free to ignore when convenient.

[–] 0 pt

Here's the rundown I promised:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-4/section-4/

Section 4 Government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This checks out. So the first part is right.

And to defend themselves in place of a treasonous government, I cannot find that anywhere. The Second Amendment does state "right to keep and bear arms."

To the last part, this is what it says about treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So unsure how strong of a stance someone can take against illegal immigrants while still staying within legal rights to do so. Certainly, wielding weapons and killing illegal immigrants is not protected under the US Constitution unless you are in an immediate threat or danger - not a figurative, an immediate threat. As in, Jose is coming at you with a knife and his buddies are right behind him.

The interesting part is the right of the people to defend themselves, like a military, in the event that the federal government does not do so.

[–] 0 pt

So unsure how strong of a stance someone can take against illegal immigrants

There's no such thing as illegal immigrants. It's plain jewish talk.

If they aren't immigrants (aka entering legally), they are invaders.

Text of Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Invaders are the enemies.

[–] 0 pt

Calling them invaders does match some definitions of the worder invader:

to enter as if to take possession:

to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:

to intrude upon:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invader

So we are good, there.

The missing pieces is #2 from that image's 3 main points and that is the right of the people to take up weapons against the invaders to defend against their invasion. That's all I will say about this topic.

[–] 0 pt

If the government doesn't stand against invaders, that means it sides with them, thus the right for the people (American citizens) to form a militia to defend themselves against the corrupt/treasonous government.

[–] 0 pt

I will review this, later, and give my rundown.

But, based off my understanding, this is mostly correct. Meaning...there is an unexplored angle on the crap our government does.