Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[bripat9643]

The relevant powers are quoted. You haven't a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court was given the power to run all trials involving the United States. In 1869 they ruled that a State may not unilaterally leave the Union. They had the authority and the power granted them by the Constitution to render such a verdict. The action was I believe Texas vs the US. Care to explain how that does not meet the powers and authority granted the Court by said Constitution?

As for the right before that decision, the Supremacy clause coupled with other powers granted the Congress and the federal Government clearly indicate that in order for a State to withdraw from the Union Congress must agree.

So post hoc a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled that Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution means secession was illegal in 1861, and I don't have a leg to stand on?

The Court is the final authority unless Congress passes legislation changing it. You claimed it did not have the authority and that the Constitution does not grant it that authority or power. You are wrong.

When a State joins the United States it falls under the Constitution. The supremacy clause means that what ever the federal Government passes as laws or edicts are superior to any State action UNLESS taken to Court and overturned ultimately by the Supreme Court.

When a State unilaterally tries to remove itself from the US it violates numerous conditions, as I noted previously , of the Constitution. The recourse is armed rebellion or the Courts. The South failed in both arenas.

We've already discredited these bullshit arguments at least a dozen times in this thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So post hoc a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled that Lincoln didn't violate the Constitution means secession was illegal in 1861, and I don't have a leg to stand on?

The Court is the final authority unless Congress passes legislation changing it. You claimed it did not have the authority and that the Constitution does not grant it that authority or power. You are wrong.

When a State joins the United States it falls under the Constitution. The supremacy clause means that what ever the federal Government passes as laws or edicts are superior to any State action UNLESS taken to Court and overturned ultimately by the Supreme Court.

When a State unilaterally tries to remove itself from the US it violates numerous conditions, as I noted previously , of the Constitution. The recourse is armed rebellion or the Courts. The South failed in both arenas.

We've already discredited these bullshit arguments at least a dozen times in this thread.

Article III is quite clear. Your ignoring it does not somehow invalidate it. Be specific show how Article III does not grant the Court the authority and power to rule on the matter.

 

[bripat9643]

The Court is the final authority unless Congress passes legislation changing it. You claimed it did not have the authority and that the Constitution does not grant it that authority or power. You are wrong.

When a State joins the United States it falls under the Constitution. The supremacy clause means that what ever the federal Government passes as laws or edicts are superior to any State action UNLESS taken to Court and overturned ultimately by the Supreme Court.

When a State unilaterally tries to remove itself from the US it violates numerous conditions, as I noted previously , of the Constitution. The recourse is armed rebellion or the Courts. The South failed in both arenas.

We've already discredited these bullshit arguments at least a dozen times in this thread.

Article III is quite clear. Your ignoring it does not somehow invalidate it. Be specific show how Article III does not grant the Court the authority and power to rule on the matter.

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

 

[TheOldSchool]

The south will rise again!!!

Lol no it won't

 

[bripat9643]

The south will rise again!!!

Lol no it won't

 

[TheOldSchool]

The south will rise again!!!

Lol no it won't

"Even these guys?" - why do you feel the need to insult a couple decent Alabamans?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We've already discredited these bullshit arguments at least a dozen times in this thread.

Article III is quite clear. Your ignoring it does not somehow invalidate it. Be specific show how Article III does not grant the Court the authority and power to rule on the matter.

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

None of that changes what the Constitution says and the Constitution is clear, Congress can create exceptions and specific regulations that restrict the Court. That is the checks and balances.

 

[bripat9643]

The south will rise again!!!

Lol no it won't

"Even these guys?" - why do you feel the need to insult a couple decent Alabamans?

 

[TheOldSchool]

"Even these guys?" - why do you feel the need to insult a couple decent Alabamans?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III section 3

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

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

 

[bripat9643]

"Even these guys?" - why do you feel the need to insult a couple decent Alabamans?

It's about time you admitted it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's about time you admitted it.

Images are just so great

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's about time you admitted it.

Images are just so great

I am trying to have a conversation here quit the childish games you two.

Jefferson's opinion does not change facts nor what the Constitution says. Further his opinion is wrong, Congress has the means and authority to check the Court. I cited the appropriate paragraph in Article III.

 

[bripat9643]

It's about time you admitted it.

Images are just so great

I am trying to have a conversation here quit the childish games you two.

Jefferson's opinion does not change facts nor what the Constitution says. Further his opinion is wrong, Congress has the means and authority to check the Court. I cited the appropriate paragraph in Article III.

You haven't posted any facts. Here's all the refutation of your claims needed:

Nuh Uhn!

Your article is simply not applicable to the issue of secession.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Images are just so great

I am trying to have a conversation here quit the childish games you two.

Jefferson's opinion does not change facts nor what the Constitution says. Further his opinion is wrong, Congress has the means and authority to check the Court. I cited the appropriate paragraph in Article III.

You haven't posted any facts. Here's all the refutation of your claims needed:

Nuh Uhn!

Your article is simply not applicable to the issue of secession.

Ok I am done with you. Closing your eyes putting your fingers in your ears and repeating ananananana doesn't prove anything. Article III is clear and has appropriate checks by Congress. The Supremacy clause is clear. Basically you are ignoring reality and facts.

 

[bripat9643]

I am trying to have a conversation here quit the childish games you two.

Jefferson's opinion does not change facts nor what the Constitution says. Further his opinion is wrong, Congress has the means and authority to check the Court. I cited the appropriate paragraph in Article III.

You haven't posted any facts. Here's all the refutation of your claims needed:

Nuh Uhn!

Your article is simply not applicable to the issue of secession.

Ok I am done with you. Closing your eyes putting your fingers in your ears and repeating ananananana doesn't prove anything. Article III is clear and has appropriate checks by Congress. The Supremacy clause is clear. Basically you are ignoring reality and facts.

Putting your fingers in your ears ans shouting "nananananana" is exactly what you're doing. Article III is irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing you have posted about the Constitution is relevant to shit discussion. Your "facts" are as relevant as the melting point of lead.

 

[candycorn]

What he said was the truth.All you gotta do is look around and see that.

Bripat, Unkotore....

Do you agree with this piece of shit?

Do I agree with what?

Amcap's statement that negros are inferior to whites.

 

[Old Rocks]

You haven't posted any facts. Here's all the refutation of your claims needed:

Nuh Uhn!

Your article is simply not applicable to the issue of secession.

Ok I am done with you. Closing your eyes putting your fingers in your ears and repeating ananananana doesn't prove anything. Article III is clear and has appropriate checks by Congress. The Supremacy clause is clear. Basically you are ignoring reality and facts.

Putting your fingers in your ears ans shouting "nananananana" is exactly what you're doing. Article III is irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing you have posted about the Constitution is relevant to shit discussion. Your "facts" are as relevant as the melting point of lead.

Fact is the seccession question was settled at Appamatox Court House. One Nation, Indivisable.

 

[candycorn]

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]

Alexander Stephens - March 21, 1861
Vice president of the confederacy
The "Conerstone Address"

Anyone who is still trying to argue that the American Civil War was "not about slavery" is historically challenged.

What he said was the truth.All you gotta do is look around and see that.

Just think guys, when you leave the nation, you get to be with this despicable racist piece of shit?

I guess that is what is underlying this entire discussion...not your "rights" but your preferences of who you want to live with; who will be allowed and who will not?

Am I right? Do you agree with AmCap that negros are not equal to whites? Is that what all of this is about?

 

[bripat9643]

Ok I am done with you. Closing your eyes putting your fingers in your ears and repeating ananananana doesn't prove anything. Article III is clear and has appropriate checks by Congress. The Supremacy clause is clear. Basically you are ignoring reality and facts.

Putting your fingers in your ears ans shouting "nananananana" is exactly what you're doing. Article III is irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing you have posted about the Constitution is relevant to shit discussion. Your "facts" are as relevant as the melting point of lead.

Fact is the seccession question was settled at Appamatox Court House. One Nation, Indivisable.

Yeah, we know, Rocks in the Head, "might makes right." And black slaves deserved to be enslaved because we could. The Indians also deserved to be wiped out.

Liberals are so compassionate.