Southern nationalist thread

Southern nationalist thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/case.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

...

Are niggers southerners too?

...

dlaczego ukradłeś moje zdjęcie kurwa

A part of the South, yes, but a Southern, no.

*southerner

Znalezione nie kradzione

To jest od moj komórki ale możesz to używać ale jedną rzecz musisz załatwić musisz zawsze kanadyjski walczyć każdą godziny każdą minutę każdą sekundę rozumiesz zawsze musisz walczyć kanadyjski do śmierć

Jestes kanadyjczykiem? Nie mowisz jak Polak.

>nationalist
So you're strictly opposed to secession? Or is this the bizarro world where nationalist means traitor?

Never been to the Southern part of the US but I like the Southern belle imagery.
>in b4 that's not a real
Just let me enjoy my fantasy please

Cousin fucker general

afaik you have constitutional right to declare independence from the union

exercise the damn thing if you guys think its the thing to do

It still exists in many small towns.

...

>TFW with no qt Southern belle to take for a ride acros the plantation

You have loyal citizens, a lot of infrastructure you didn't have in the Civil War, and decent agriculture (though not the best in the US, probably 3rd or 4th most productive region).
But
>major minority populations leading to multicult problems.
>your culture is pretty weak, Nashville and Dollywood would have to step up to the plate to spread your culture
>most of the big research institutes are outside the south except Kennedy SS and Huntsville, AL.
I think you guys would have a good chance.
Multicult is insurmountable, though. If you tried Jim Crow to handle it, the entire rest of the planet would go to war with you.

I'm from the south and proud

They do not. Secession is prohibited by the Constitution.

The South is basically a nigger containment zone. But they’ll keep blaming the Yankees despite the fact Lincoln wanted to deport them during his second term.

*Mixed mutt general
FTFY

Really, can you point me to the article that is specific regarding the issue?

I studied constitutional law and we never mentioned that your states are forbidden by the constitution to declare Independence.

If you free to join you are free to leave?

Can't find any secession specific writings. :(

Why would you want to fight for a nation that’s mostly populated by blacks anyways? I wouldn’t be surprised if the South becomes like the Caribbean in a hundred years where it’s mostly populated by mulattos. Southern whites aren’t like White South Africans who are black killing machines. They’re little more then civic nationalists these days.

>being this jealous

It's contradicted by the spirit of the Constitution, not the express meaning. See supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/case.html
Important to note, the spirit of the Constitution is equivalent to the Constitution itself. The difference is it is implicit while the express meaning is explicit. This principle was established by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

Completely unachievable. What's the point?

I don’t live in a state where I’m getting mugged by Tyrone or have to see ugly coal burners daily. Stay mad

Are you a federal state or are you not?

It's the matter of interpretation.

The spirit can change, as it did once and was crushed by force.

Lawyers will always twist and turn every word to meet their needs (law isn't mathematics). But the fact is, there is no article that explicitly forbids the exit.

If you are free to join you are free to leave, just like marriage.

Mind you this is purely academic, as no state will ever leave the union.

>The spirit can change
No, it can't. This isn't just arbitrarily saying something is or is not the spirit of the Constitution, it is discerned by examining the historical context and the immediate and greater contexts respectively of the document itself.
>But the fact is, there is no article that explicitly forbids the exit.
The Articles of Confederation had a clause which required explicit authorization for the federal government to do something. The Philadelphia Convention deliberately and explicitly rejected this clause as inflexible and refused to include it in the Constitution. This is not how the framers wanted the Constitution to be interpreted. Because secession is implicitly unconstitutional, it is actually unconstitutional.

once we lift the blacks out of poverty they'll finally be able to afford to move north.
A second great migration will come and you will reap what you sow. Chicago was just the first.
>was one of the largest and most rapid mass internal movements in history—perhaps the greatest not caused by the immediate threat of execution or starvation. In sheer numbers it outranks the migration of any other ethnic group—Italians or Irish or Jews or Poles

Implying something can't change ;)

Everything in this world is prone to change.

But as I said its purely academic at this point.

European law has its quirks and interpretations, different from Anglo-saxon practices.

We view constitutional law in a lets say more idealistic way. You guys are pragmatics.

Didn't you guys split the Massachusetts in order for the north to have majority?

So the state can split and the new state becomes automatically the union member.

As I said, pragmatic utilitarian approach.

>Implying something can't change ;)
The spirit of the Constitution is in the past, and that cannot change.
>We view constitutional law in a lets say more idealistic way. You guys are pragmatics.
Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean continental political philosophy disregards practical application? If so it's no wonder you guys have had such problems.

The south will rise again

Everyone down here is mexican or a part. The old South is ded....

Work my field, boy

Nah man, we have South West research inst. here and there isn't much multicult, at least in South tex

why do you envy us so much that you cannot live without us? The future is bright for us, can't say the same for you.

you're just a hamiltonian drone. go watch the broadway play some more. Southerners were the majority of the ratifiers of the Constitution, majority of US presidents until after the Civil War, and they all understood The Constitution as a compact between the states which created a central gov for their betterment. Hamilton and Lincoln's notion of the Constitution won out, but don't act as if that was the "spirit" of the Constitution because you'd be wrong, yank.

Dude fuck that play and all the bullshit it spawned purely by pandering to the funking far-left

>don't listen to the men who actually wrote the Constitution, listen to a bunch of unpatriotic self-fattening slaveholders instead

Here we have something, every sovereign state being federal, confederate, etc. is based on contract.

And contracts can change.

Really the absolute and unchanging spirit from the past that hovers over the USA can't stand serious criticism as the USA Constitution interpretations has changed over the past and even Constitution was changed with amendments.

>Here we have something, every sovereign state being federal, confederate, etc. is based on contract
Except it isn't. That was the system of the Confederation, which the Constitution abolished. The reality is the Constitution itself is an anti-secessionist document, it was created to prevent states from seceding and the Union from dissolving, as Federalist nos. 13 and 16 show, among others.
>USA Constitution interpretations has changed over the past
Irrelevant. You should never interpret anything based on how others have interpreted it.
>and even Constitution was changed with amendments.
Also completely irrelevant.