Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[RetiredGySgt]

определить по разделам статьи и п. Конституционный условии

For my Americans friends who do not fly monkeys

identify by article section and clause the Constitutional proviso

.

Article IV the entire thing.

Article 1 section 10, CLAUSE ____________________?

Article 4



Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The first section requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress may regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.

In Mills v. Duryee, 1t1 U.S. (7 Cranch) 481 (1813), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of a case, as settled by courts of one state, must be recognized by the courts of other states; state courts may not reopen cases which have been conclusively decided by the courts of another state.

Try again, maybe is the anti-secession clause, oh, wait that is the Communist Manifesto.

.

The article has more then that in it
But then you know that and I quoted the appropriate parts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey dumb fuck how far way is England to us?

By jet or ship?

it probably would be different now.....Of course also back then the UNITED colonies rebelled not just a few whiners.

Actually, Mensa Boy, the people who wanted to rebel against Great Britain were in a minority. They were, by no means, "united colonies".

Nice history display.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The whole argument proves one thing, a war had to be fought to determine the right to secede, and an attempt now to secede would only mean another war. No legal hocus pocus nor even a Supreme Court decision would solve this problem; only win or lose a war.

So?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Something sick about not caring your selfish behavior would cause the death of millions of Americans

Go tell that to Spartacus. Selfish bastard should have just stayed a slave.

Would it shock you to know that 1) people die, no matter what you do, and 2) some people don't consider prolonged life at all costs to be the highest good? Some people view freedom as being worth dying for. Go figure.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, in his COMPLETELY CORRECT mind, the ownership of the territory on which a fort stands DOES have an impact on who the fort belongs to. As has been pointed out, just because the United States has military bases in other countries does not mean it is appropriate or legally justifiable for us to refuse to remove our personnel from them in the nation in question demands it. This would be viewed as an act of war against that country, and rightly so.

The property belonged to the Federal Government it was BOUGHT by them years before the war.

Yeah, and I bought property in Florida a few years ago. Does that mean it's no longer part of Florida? The federal government owns the Post Office down the street from me. Is that part of Florida? Do the laws of Florida no longer pertain once you cross over onto the Post Office property?

This is an incredibly dumb argument.

Really? Ever been on a Federal base? Notice that once you enter the base may or may not enforce4 State law and they have their own Federal laws. For example, a State may have conceal carry, but guess what? Not on most federal property.

Most federal buildings are not actually owned by the Government but Bases are. They had their own laws and regulations and the State had no authority.

Read the Constitution it clearly states that ONLY the Congress can dispose of federal property. Shall I quote it for you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lincoln committed the first act of war. He refused to vacate the territory of South Carolina and he sent federal ships into the territorial waters of South Carolina. Who fired the first shot is immaterial. Germany claimed that Poland fired the first shot before it invaded. Only imbeciles are fooled by such maneuvers.



I'm sure you're a moron.

The United States has many military bases overseas in other countries at the moment. Every single one of them is considered US territory and property. If one of those countries - Japan, for example - decided that it hated the United States and demanded that we remove our personnel and equipment and vacate the bases in their country, and Obama said, "Fuck you, they're ours" and sent ships and planes to resupply them, and Japan subsequently fired on those bases, who would you say started that war?

The base was not in a foreign Country. South Carolina FREELY ceded the fort to the Federal Government years before the civil war. Further Congress not the President decide what to do about Federal property. Lincoln had no power to abandon the fort. And the only Federal property that the South got was seized by force. The only forts they got were either unmanned or so poorly manned they could not resist the force brought to bear to seize them.

Article IV is clear, if congress is not seated the President must use force to protect the States in the Union. Only Congress can declare a State not in the Union, not the State. Article IV states that the Government must act to ensure a republican form of Government and that all rights and privileges of citizens are protected.

Sorry, but at the moment South Carolina seceded from the United States, it became a foreign country. And Japan has "ceded" those military bases to the United States in exactly the same way South Carolina "ceded" Ft. Sumter, but I doubt you'd consider that to mean it's okay for the United States to hold onto them in the face of Japanese demands.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

The first lesson to learn about history is that no event is completely encapsulated or happens in a vacuum. Thus, only a fool or a child thinks the War for Southern Independence "started" with the shots fired at Fort Sumter, as though there was nothing leading up to it and it all simply popped into existence out of nothing.

So certainly SOMEONE needs to learn some history.

Lincoln did nothing before Sumter, he was waiting for Congress to be seated. he only called forth the Militia once the South instigated armed rebellion at Fort Sumter. If the Northern States did not believe he was correct they could have refused to call up their militias.

That's nice, but it doesn't change anything I said. It's only remotely relevant to what I said, in fact.

 

[The T]

By jet or ship?

it probably would be different now.....Of course also back then the UNITED colonies rebelled not just a few whiners.

Actually, Mensa Boy, the people who wanted to rebel against Great Britain were in a minority. They were, by no means, "united colonies".

Nice history display.

When parsed? 1/3 were LOYALISTS, 1/3 were Patriots and with the rebellion, and the remaining didn't want to be bothered by either side...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The United States has many military bases overseas in other countries at the moment. Every single one of them is considered US territory and property. If one of those countries - Japan, for example - decided that it hated the United States and demanded that we remove our personnel and equipment and vacate the bases in their country, and Obama said, "Fuck you, they're ours" and sent ships and planes to resupply them, and Japan subsequently fired on those bases, who would you say started that war?

The base was not in a foreign Country. South Carolina FREELY ceded the fort to the Federal Government years before the civil war. Further Congress not the President decide what to do about Federal property. Lincoln had no power to abandon the fort. And the only Federal property that the South got was seized by force. The only forts they got were either unmanned or so poorly manned they could not resist the force brought to bear to seize them.

Article IV is clear, if congress is not seated the President must use force to protect the States in the Union. Only Congress can declare a State not in the Union, not the State. Article IV states that the Government must act to ensure a republican form of Government and that all rights and privileges of citizens are protected.

Sorry, but at the moment South Carolina seceded from the United States, it became a foreign country. And Japan has "ceded" those military bases to the United States in exactly the same way South Carolina "ceded" Ft. Sumter, but I doubt you'd consider that to mean it's okay for the United States to hold onto them in the face of Japanese demands.

Wrong again Foreign nations make treaties that state how and it what manner the US can use it. Foreign law still applies if in the treaty. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that ONLY Congress can dispose of federal property. State laws are superseded and federal regulations and laws apply.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The preamble is not legally enforceable. The Articles of Confederation said it formed a "perpetual union." Was that true?

It was absolutely true . . . you know, until it wasn't any more.

 

[The T]

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.

*sigh*

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the Constitution says nothing about prohibiting States from seceding - and it doesn't - that would mean it is a power reserved to the States, or to the people. And, of course, we have ALWAYS allowed individual people to leave the United States if they no longer wish to be part of it.

Bingo! And what of the Ninth?

Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Now what does this mean?

Click the Underlined and find out...

 

[Cecilie1200]

One more thing before I go do laundry.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Someone tell me again how the same generation that set its hand to these words then turned around and made doing the exact same thing illegal for everyone else?

 

[National Socialist]

By jet or ship?

it probably would be different now.....Of course also back then the UNITED colonies rebelled not just a few whiners.

Actually, Mensa Boy, the people who wanted to rebel against Great Britain were in a minority. They were, by no means, "united colonies".

Nice history display.

Correct. I believe I read somewhere once only 20% of the colonists wanted Independence.

 

[Contumacious]

[

The article has more then that in it
But then you know that and I quoted the appropriate parts.

1. Resolved that the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force."

Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My state, AZ, is pissed that they have no jurisdiction over land in our national parks, which belong to the federal government. They even put a referendum on the last election ballot, giving the state the right to CLAIM such jurisdiction. It didn't pass. For one thing the state is broke, so why do they want to maintain a national park? For another, by law, all natioanl parks and national monuments are the property of the united states government. The same is true of US military bases.Destruction of Federal property is a crime. It can be regarded as a simple felony, or insurrection. Both are illegal. Firing on Ft. Sumpter is an illegal act under federal law, no matter how you spin it. KIlling federal armed forces personnel is also a crime, unless the beligerant has been recognized as a internationally legal entity that has declared war. Otherwise, it is insurrection or terrorism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article 1 Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

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.

Article 4 section 2

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Arti8cle IV section 3

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

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.

Article VI 2nd paragraph

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 9 and amendment 10 do not grant the right to leave the Union to the States as the previous articles show that once in the Union Congress has supremacy over any state action or law and is specifically charged with protecting the rights of citizens even against States. When all these are taken together they clearly demonstrate that one can only leave the Union by action of Congress.

U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[The T]

My state, AZ, is pissed that they have no jurisdiction over land in our national parks, which belongs to the federal government. They even put a referendum on the last election ballot, giving the state the right to CLAIM such jurisdiction. It didn't pass. For one thing the state is broke, so why do they want to maintain a national park? For another, by law, all natioanl parks and national monuments are the property of the united states government. The same is true of US military bases.

Welcome to 100 years of PROGRESSIVISM that seek to destroy States sovereignty and that of the people. THIS Present Government MUST be abolished and steered BACK to the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

Amendment 9 and amendment 10 do not grant the right to leave the Union to the States as the previous articles show that once in the Union Congress has supremacy over any state action or law and is specifically charged with protecting the rights of citizens even against States. When all these are taken together they clearly demonstrate that one can only leave the Union by action of Congress.

U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Again, the Constitution granted SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS NONE OF WHICH AUTHORIZES FEDGOV TO PREVENT SECESSION.

.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Amendment 9 and amendment 10 do not grant the right to leave the Union to the States as the previous articles show that once in the Union Congress has supremacy over any state action or law and is specifically charged with protecting the rights of citizens even against States. When all these are taken together they clearly demonstrate that one can only leave the Union by action of Congress.

U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Again, the Constitution granted SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS NONE OF WHICH AUTHORIZES FEDGOV TO PREVENT SECESSION.

.

.

shall I quote that for you?

Article I section 8 last paragraph

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute.

 

[Contumacious]

Amendment 9 and amendment 10 do not grant the right to leave the Union to the States as the previous articles show that once in the Union Congress has supremacy over any state action or law and is specifically charged with protecting the rights of citizens even against States. When all these are taken together they clearly demonstrate that one can only leave the Union by action of Congress.

U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Again, the Constitution granted SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS NONE OF WHICH AUTHORIZES FEDGOV TO PREVENT SECESSION.

.

.

shall I quote that for you?

Article I section 8 last paragraph

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute.

.