Pledges, Promises and Creeds: On My Honor...

[TheScout 10]

Or you could believe that the sovereignty belongs to the people of each state, who form the state governments, who delegate the powers to the federal government.

 

One can think the US is the greatest country in the world and still think it has its flaws and can learn from other countries. I do.

 

If not, which country is greater?

[CalicoPenn 729]

I believe that no country is greater than any other country.

[SSScout 1619]

Thank you for calling the controversy hotline. Your call is very important to us. Unfortunately, all of our debaters are presently busy with other chatroom discussions. Please hold on. One of our resident debaters will take your call shortly and then make you angry.

((elevator music... Meliquino Strings Tribute to Cream))

Please continue to hold. You have...three-posters-ahead-of-you...

((Meliquino Strings Do Disraeli Gears))

 

 

Hello? So the problems are 1) the definition of "enemy" and "sovereign" and 2) whether the DoI allows folks to remove the government they are unhappy with (so someone invented the democratic republican form to do it peacefully) and 3) NOT that we are asked to swear/promise/affirm to something publicly?

 

Howbout them Redskins?

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Perhaps you are in error. Maybe the states possess full sovereignty and through the Constitution delegate some of their sovereignty to the US through their insturment which is the federal government.

 

The idea of "divided sovereignty" is not something I came up with, it is the generally accepted view. If you don't accept it, you don't accept it. There isn't really much of a practical difference anyway, since having "delegated" some of their sovereignty, through a Constitution that has a Supremacy Clause, the states can't get that power back without the federal government's consent. Before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment there was a thought that maybe they could, but now it is pretty clear they cannot.

 

[Trevorum 24]

NJ, is this the same type of relationship as between the federal government and the sovereign Navajo Nation (or other tribal nations)?

[TheScout 10]

"There isn't really much of a practical difference anyway, since having "delegated" some of their sovereignty, through a Constitution that has a Supremacy Clause, the states can't get that power back without the federal government's consent.

 

This isn't what the supremacy clause means.

[John-in-KC 311]

Didn't our Nation go through this during the era of the House Un-American Activities Committee?

 

I care not if we make every "citizen/national" take the same Oath that immigrants do upon entering Citizenship ...

 

There will be people who will mouth the words pro forma, and just don't care. It's that simple.

 

There will be other people who will out and out lie as they mouth the words.

 

There will be people who care about this Nation.

 

Like Eagletrek and others here, I took my Oath of Office a few mornings ago. I've rendered the Oath a few times, both to enlisted troops and to young people entering the officer corps. There were many times before my retirement date that while others said the Pledge, I quietly recited the Oath.

 

If you care about this Nation, no oath is necessary. You walk the walk.

 

If you care not, you may talk a talk, but you won't do the walk.

 

To me it's that simple.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Trevorum: I'm not sure, I have never been quite clear on the legal basis of the relationship between the U.S. government and Native American nations. I just looked at a Wikipedia article to try to figure it out, but it seems pretty complicated.

 

TheScout: The last part of my sentence from before was not based on the Supremacy Clause. It was based on the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.

[Stosh 3452]

The Indian nations are conquered nations, just like any other country that is taken over. For many years they were under the domain of the War Department, until in the 20th Century they were realigned into the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For the most part, they are, like Japan and Germany, conquered and given certain rights/priviledges by the Federal government. I do believe as of maybe 1945 Indians have been given full citizenship and Indian Lands i.e. reservations are given special considerations. Indians not on the reservations are U.S. citizens having been born off reservation.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle 753]

SSScout, I prefer a flute ensemble version of "The Girl from Ipanema" as elevator music. There's just nothing better than the classics. Spielberg evidently agreed.

 

John-in-KC, I agree. Deeds speak more truly than creeds.

[John-in-KC 311]

I'll take brass band (British tradition vice the full woodwind/brasswind symphonic band of American tradition) or a tuba/euphonium quartet any day of the week

[packsaddle 753]

John-in-KC, Tennessee Tech used to have an exquisite tuba ensemble. I have often enjoyed their performances. But I haven't seen them in quite a while, just haven't spent much time in Cookeville lately.

 

Edited part: Hey, just found this:

http://orgs.tntech.edu/tuba/

They're alive and well. I may pick up one of their recordings.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[CalicoPenn 729]

Native Americans are US Citizens regardless of whether they are on a reservation or not.

 

In general, most reservations are considered sovereign territories/nations within states. Tribes can accept state jurisdiction (more common in the East and with smaller tribes) or can reject state jurisdiction completely, or can accept limited jurisdiction. Federal law applies, as it does with every other state and territory. Tribes that reject state jurisdiction have their own laws, but can only create laws which punish misdemeanors. Felonies are Federal crimes (unless a Tribe has accepted State jurisdiction).

 

For those tribes that completely reject state jurisdiction, tribal members on the reservation may not vote for state elected officials. They vote for their own elected officials, and can vote for federal elected officials - including Senators and Representatives (who then represent the tibes as well as the state). Tribes that accept full state jurisdiction may vote for state elected officials, and their tribal governments are, for the most part, treated essentially as local governments within the state.

 

The tribes that do not accept state jurisdiction issue their own license plates, maintain their own roads, make their own hunting and fishing regulations, etc. etc. In parts of Minnesota, you'll see license plates for the Red Lake band of Chippewa. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma also issues their own license plates.

 

Calico

 

Calico

 

 

[SSScout 1619]

check out www.tubachristmas.com and the Harry Phillips Foundation.

 

So are actions more important than mere words?

 

Does the WAY we declare our loyalties (to God, Country, Queen (see other thread), truth, and/or

family and Community) matter more than how we DEMONSTRATE them?

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Whether it is done as airy persiflage or puffery, I consider the 'declaration' of something to have less authority than the actual demonstration of it. Or to use an old saying, it's one thing to have the mouth, quite another to put your money where the mouth is.

 

What is the other thread?