Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[candycorn]

I guess you can argue that before the Supreme Court.

Argue WHAT before 9 Black-Robed tyrants that are NO BETTER THAN YOU OR I? Really? THEY are NOT the final say...now are they?

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

 

[The T]

I guess you can argue that before the Supreme Court.

Argue WHAT before 9 Black-Robed tyrants that are NO BETTER THAN YOU OR I? Really? THEY are NOT the final say...now are they?

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

See Maubury V Madison where they granted themselves such power...

NEXT!

READ the friggin Constitution

 

[Cecilie1200]

I guess you can argue that before the Supreme Court.

Argue WHAT before 9 Black-Robed tyrants that are NO BETTER THAN YOU OR I? Really? THEY are NOT the final say...now are they?

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

They're "empowered" to decide what the Constitution means only by THEMSELVES. I realize you're deeply impressed by people usurping and allocating to themselves powers not rightfully their own, but not all of us are sheep.

 

[The T]

Argue WHAT before 9 Black-Robed tyrants that are NO BETTER THAN YOU OR I? Really? THEY are NOT the final say...now are they?

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

They're "empowered" to decide what the Constitution means only by THEMSELVES. I realize you're deeply impressed by people usurping and allocating to themselves powers not rightfully their own, but not all of us are sheep.

Dead-On accurate...

 

[candycorn]

Argue WHAT before 9 Black-Robed tyrants that are NO BETTER THAN YOU OR I? Really? THEY are NOT the final say...now are they?

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

See Maubury V Madison where they granted themselves such power...

NEXT!

READ the friggin Constitution

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means, still; despite your opinion otherwise.

 

[The T]

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

See Maubury V Madison where they granted themselves such power...

NEXT!

READ the friggin Constitution

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means, still; despite your opinion otherwise.

What SECTION of the Constitution? Chapter and verse please?

 

[candycorn]

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

They're "empowered" to decide what the Constitution means only by THEMSELVES. I realize you're deeply impressed by people usurping and allocating to themselves powers not rightfully their own, but not all of us are sheep.

Dead-On accurate...

No, the President appoints them, the Senate approves their appointment, and they sit and decide what the Constitution means (Free speech v. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

That is the truth in society; here in bizarro world...who knows?

 

[The T]

They're "empowered" to decide what the Constitution means only by THEMSELVES. I realize you're deeply impressed by people usurping and allocating to themselves powers not rightfully their own, but not all of us are sheep.

Dead-On accurate...

No, the President appoints them, the Senate approves their appointment, and they sit and decide what the Constitution means (Free speech v. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

That is the truth in society; here in bizarro world...who knows?

'Scuse me? What Constitution are YOU reading exactly?

 

[candycorn]

Dead-On accurate...

No, the President appoints them, the Senate approves their appointment, and they sit and decide what the Constitution means (Free speech v. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

That is the truth in society; here in bizarro world...who knows?

'Scuse me? What Constitution are YOU reading exactly?

You don't think they interpret the Constitution? Do tell.

 

[The T]

No, the President appoints them, the Senate approves their appointment, and they sit and decide what the Constitution means (Free speech v. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

That is the truth in society; here in bizarro world...who knows?

'Scuse me? What Constitution are YOU reading exactly?

You don't think they interpret the Constitution? Do tell.

WHERE are they granted that power? CITE IT

 

[The T]

All THREE BRANCHES have equal power...EACH checking the other...ULTIMATE power is retained by...WAIT FOR IT...

The PEOPLE...

 

[candycorn]

'Scuse me? What Constitution are YOU reading exactly?

You don't think they interpret the Constitution? Do tell.

WHERE are they granted that power? CITE IT

Article 3, Section 2 (among others).

 

[candycorn]

All THREE BRANCHES have equal power...EACH checking the other...ULTIMATE power is retained by...WAIT FOR IT...

The PEOPLE...

Actually, the 41st Senator of the minority party pretty much has more power than any one else in Washington.

 

[The T]

All THREE BRANCHES have equal power...EACH checking the other...ULTIMATE power is retained by...WAIT FOR IT...

The PEOPLE...

Actually, the 41st Senator of the minority party pretty much has more power than any one else in Washington.

Really? TRY AGAIN

 

[The T]

You don't think they interpret the Constitution? Do tell.

WHERE are they granted that power? CITE IT

Article 3, Section 2 (among others).

So the Court can run roughshod over theCongress, The Potus, and the people...by FIAT? Really?

See the Federalists...

 

[Cecilie1200]

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means. Lemme guess; you don't recognize their authority to do so...right?

See Maubury V Madison where they granted themselves such power...

NEXT!

READ the friggin Constitution

They're empowered in deciding what the Constitution means, still; despite your opinion otherwise.

I see. So you're one of those who's perfectly good with the idea of whoever has the power, regardless of how they acquired it, making you into a slave.

I guess freedom is just too damned scary for some people. I do wish they'd get over the idea that the REST of us should be content in slavery with them, though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The States HAVE the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to secede if the FEDERAL Government on whole has impeded the sovereignty of the States as implied in the Ninth and Tenth. It IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Or did they give that UP with the implementation of the 17th? NO.

At no time did the USA impede the sovereignty of the Southern States , in fact they left because they thought no more Slave States would be admitted to the Union and that eventually their power in Congress would let the majority change the Constitution to outlaw slavery. In 1861 the Southern States were the ones that got special treatment from the Constitution.

Well, OBVIOUSLY their SOVEREIGNTY was impinged upon, they fucking left.

Again the NORTHERN states ratified the COMPACT knowing that their SOuthern counterparts allowed slavery.

SO what's the big fucking deal.

.

Be specific, what sovereignty of the Southern States was violated by the election of Lincoln. Cite the cases and be specific.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They're "empowered" to decide what the Constitution means only by THEMSELVES. I realize you're deeply impressed by people usurping and allocating to themselves powers not rightfully their own, but not all of us are sheep.

Dead-On accurate...

No, the President appoints them, the Senate approves their appointment, and they sit and decide what the Constitution means (Free speech v. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

That is the truth in society; here in bizarro world...who knows?

That wasn't even a good attempt at a dodge. We're talking about how they acquired the power of judicial review, and you start blathering about how they become Justices? Really? Are you actually stupid enough to think that's going to work, or are you just hoping everyone else is?

Try again, Chuckles. Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean I'm planning to let you relax in your idiocy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't think they interpret the Constitution? Do tell.

WHERE are they granted that power? CITE IT

Article 3, Section 2 (among others).

I believe he was asking you to QUOTE IT, you silly bitch, not throw out an Article and Section number and simply claim that what you want is in there. I could say, "Article 3, Section 2 gives Supreme Court Justices the power to shoot annoying lawyers in their courtroom", but that doesn't actually prove that such a quote is in there.

At least TRY not to be such a misogynist cliche, hmmm?

 

[candycorn]

WHERE are they granted that power? CITE IT

Article 3, Section 2 (among others).

So the Court can run roughshod over theCongress, The Potus, and the people...by FIAT? Really?

See the Federalists...

Not really;

They decide what is constitutional or not when cases rise through the court system to their docket.

Like you guys had DOMA overturned the other day (BOOYAH!!!). Pity. If you don't like it, get a Constitutional Amendment on the books; can't be overturned by the Supreme Court. There is usually recourse in most cases.