Let me put it like this: When the plantation owners refused to let slaves leave them, was it "genocide" for guys in Maine to march down to the South and kill off the plantation owners wholesale until the slaves were freed?
Ah, but you are conflating -- hence confusing -- two entirely different circumstances:
1) People trying to escape you.
2) People trying to expel people like you from their territory, once they have escaped you supremacist government.
It is in your nature, as a parasite, to conflate these two circumstances because it is in your nature, as a parasite to confuse perception. Without confused perception you would not be able to continue to sap the life out of your victims.
In the circumstance when people are trying to escape you and you are using every trick in the book, including confusing use of words, to prevent them from doing so, you forfeit your rights as a human. You are a force of nature and will be treated accordingly.
In the circumstance when people have successfully seceded, along with enough territory that they are not de facto refugees, the subsequent assortative migrations have relocation expenses that must be borne by the governments from which people are trying to escape. That means when determining the territory to secede, the secessionists and the accessionists should carefully consider the relocation expenses for which they will be liable.
That means if you get stuck among the secessionists, they would have to not only provide fair market value for your properties that you cannot relocate, but they must provide moving expenses for your properties that you can relocate. The flip side of that is that the defeated accessionist government would have to provide similar compensations for those relocating to the ceded territory.
Of course, if, during the struggle to free themselves from you -- circumstance #1 --you persisted in your supremacist work, you would be treated as a force of nature and quite possibly killed without a moment's remorse.
Its easy to point to all kinds of disasters and genocides throughout history -- more actually due to accession than secession.
Look, I know you don't want people to escape people like you. You're a parasite. I got that. Just be aware that your parasitic nature entails dependence and if those upon which you depend are determined enough, they can and will simply cut you off and you will die. They don't need to attack you personally.
If that 30% was willing to accept the secession of 30% of the territory of the existing US by land value I don't see how their demand for self-determination is incompatible with notions of self-ownership as well as government by consent.
Indeed, I not only can, but do see how the 70% not wishing to secede would be imposing tyranny of the majority by denying such secession. They would be fair game.
Ah, a so your criteria for tyranny includes a decrease in tyranny over existing governments.
Thanks for playing, Troll.
What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion [militianews.com] toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?
Then those 30% would be proposing tyranny.
So I take it the charade of rule by law is supposed to stabilize things while the most corrupt among us increasingly centralize power and so marginalize the rest of us that we are demographically replaced by a new people?
Oh I forgot the clause in the Constitution that says yet another way it may be amended is by a majority vote of the Supreme Court!
So, now that the Supreme Court has wadded up the Constitution and tossed in on the trash heap of history -- essentially making everything a political fight at the Federal level -- when does someone in the military realize their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic basically requires them to nuke Washington DC?
If the animal products cross state lines, that is the point where the Interstate Commerce Clause kicks in -- not at the brewers who are selling inside the State to animal producers.
Very well -- so where is their authority to regulate animal feed that doesn't cross state lines?
If all it takes to avoid the expensive retooling is restricting the sale of the animal feed to within the State of origin, it seems that would provide an option a lot of these brewers would choose.
Somehow I suspect that the Feds don't _really_ care about the Constitution. Moreover, I suspect that puts me on their "watch" list.
Weed that doesn't cross state lines you mean.
OK, so tell me where in the Constitution I should look for Federal power to regulate beer that doesn't cross state lines.
Thus far my comments have been regarding a hypothetical "treasonous" government -- leaving the definition of that to the reader. However, even if the government isn't "treasonous" it may be that a substantial number of its citizens wish to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- even if the government is operating entirely within the law.
The question then becomes less about "Constitutionality" and more about exactly how many people want to depart from the existing form of government and its principles.
What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?
Is that enough for the more conscientious of the military to stand down as that 100 million citizens seek to leave what they must see as the moral equivalent to a plantation?
A little anecdote: The wife of a friend of mine, on the morning of 9/11/2001, was watching the news reports come in and the moment the attack on the Pentagon came in, she blurted out "That was the Israelis."
Your little "lesson" about not attacking the military is such common sense that even some housewives consider it incredible that any but a false flag op would do it.