Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've always found it ironic that libertarians who purport that the Federal government (a collective) was acting in tyranny by not allowing the Southern states (also collectives) to leave fall back on the claim that states (remember, collectives) had the right to leave the union so they (the collective) could legally deny the rights of individuals (the slaves) they claim are inherent from God.
These so-called "libertarians" are merely defending one collective over another.
Their defense of liberty might have some credibility if these Southern "patriots" hadn't used legal force of the state (reminder --> the collective) to subjugate individual rights for 100 years after the Civil War through the morally repugnant Segregation.
Actually libertarians defended the right of states to determine their own destiny....they chose to be a confederacy of states....
Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual, not the state. Not ANY state. It doesn't matter if it is the federal state, a state or province, a county, a city, or whatever legal collective you wish to define.
Slavery is the oppression and subjugation of individuals, and is a violation of all and any meaningful definitions of individual rights. Slavery is what the Confederacy was protecting. The Confederacy wanted to maintain a legal system of collective power over individuals.
And here we have so-called "libertarians" defending it.
Libertarians don't defend this. If you want to call yourself a Constitutionalist, fine. But you aren't a libertarian.
Whatever.
Your premise is pathetic idiocy, as secession is indeed un-Constitutional.
Really? Can you prove that by way of actual Constitutional quotes, as opposed to self-serving judicial "interpretations"?
Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?
Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.
there is one thing we can honestly say without a doubt. The Civil War is over
Amazingly enough, "We decided to believe this" does not equal "settled".
Amazingly, "we don't like this" by a very few whiners does not mean the issue "is not settled."
We are humoring the whiners, although it is settled. For a long, long time, whiners.
True; it's a dead issue. Again, I think it would be a cleansing process to have them try their luck with some of the bases in the South and see how much support they get from the standing military.
The preamble to the Constitution.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It clearly states a perfect union.
Yes, indeed
The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
.
The Declaration is a one shot deal.
It's never been used in any serious way in any legislation.
Well, you know, except for the essential basis of thought underlying the Constitution which all other laws must be in accordance with.
Not that that's ever been important to the likes of you.
One of Lincoln's first acts was the creation of paper money and an "income" tax - both entities which were adamantly opposed by the Framers.
.
Let's remind everyone that you are the guy in this thread who believes that he can secede from his township and in the process legally exempt himself from having to obey local laws, regulations, ordinances,
and exempt himself from paying town taxes, effectively turn his property into a sovereign nation,
and all of that is perfectly legal and constitutiionally protected.
...speaking of pathetic arguments...
I have never said it was legal or Constitutionally protected. However, it certainly isn't prohibited by the Constitution.
neither beastieality or murder.
This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:
"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."
~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10
The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.
The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jeffersons famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.
This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.
What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo
The declaration was written a decade before the constitution. It was a political document that listed the grievances that brought on the revolution. It did not then and does not now have any force of law.
When the constitution came along it was acknowledged that the government could, and would, be changed at the ballot box.
No brainer!
Fort Sumter was a union base...... You can all make excuse but the fact is the confederates attacked union soldiers continuously and started a war they lost. Whether you can secede or not is immaterial since they started the war that lost them their stupid slavery nation.
Really? Can you prove that by way of actual Constitutional quotes, as opposed to self-serving judicial "interpretations"?
Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?
Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.
The states are subordinate to federal law via the Supremacy Clause. They have accepted that by joining the Union. In order to secede a state has to effectively nullify all federal laws that it is subject to as a part of the Union.
Nullification was ruled unconstitutional.
Therefore, unless a state could somehow secede while continuing to obey all federal laws,
secession has to be unconstitutional.
btw, the Supremacy Clause is not conditional. There is no 'out' related to the Supremacy Clause in which a loophole could be found to let secession through.
Whatever.
Your premise is pathetic idiocy, as ‘secession’ is indeed un-Constitutional.
Really? Can you prove that by way of actual Constitutional quotes, as opposed to self-serving judicial "interpretations"?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that to join one must get approval from Congress. Yet it is clearly understood that that is in fact the law. One can assume that if to join requires an act of Congress to leave would also.
Fact is secession is a damn stupid idea. Only idiots think it wouldn't start yet another civil war. The US government will never allow it to happen. They dont even have to start the war cause as history has shown all they have to do is not trade with them or allow them trade off shore and sooner or later some fucking moron will start a war. Secession is a ignorant romantic idea that will fail. Cause if it were to become successful the USA would be destroyed and the rest of the world will easily eat up the pieces left. There is a reason they say united we stand divided we fall.
Fact is secession is a damn stupid idea. Only idiots think it wouldn't start yet another civil war. The US government will never allow it to happen. They dont even have to start the war cause as history has shown all they have to do is not trade with them or allow them trade off shore and sooner or later some fucking moron will start a war. Secession is a ignorant romantic idea that will fail. Cause if it were to become successful the USA would be destroyed and the rest of the world will easily eat up the pieces left. There is a reason they say united we stand divided we fall.
Guess we should have stayed a colony of Great Britain Eh? Fucking twit.
Hey dumb fuck how far way is England to us?
Really? Can you prove that by way of actual Constitutional quotes, as opposed to self-serving judicial "interpretations"?
Indeed. What DOES the Constitution say regarding seccession?
Can't say that I have read ANY clause saying that ANY State cannot.
it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.
it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.
No, you can infer the right to do it from the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constituion that specifically address powers that aren't granted to the federal government, but aren't prohibited to the states....
It doesn't say shit about it in the 10th.
it doesn't say anything about it. You can infer that they have the right to do it from the declaration of independence but that too started a war.
No, you can infer the right to do it from the 10th Amendment in the U.S. Constituion that specifically address powers that aren't granted to the federal government, but aren't prohibited to the states....
It doesn't say shit about it in the 10th.
What's that got to do with anything?
Per the Constitution South Carolina ceded the fort to the federal Government years before the civil war.it was not part of South Carolina.
They sold it or gave it to the federal government. It remained South Carolina territory, just as Edwards Airforce is part of California.
