Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[bripat9643]

Article I Section 9 of the constitution gives Congress the right to suppress insurrections.

Seceding from the union would certainly be considered an insurrection.

Therefore, it is unconstitutional to secede from the union.

It's only considered an insurrection by boot-lickers like you. Most people living in the USA in 1860 did not consider it to be insurrection. That was purely a novel interpretation by the likes of Abraham Loncoln.

OK - so what are you trying to get at?

Do you think it should be legal for state to drop out of the union today? Is that your point?

Exactly, and the Civil War should never have happened.

 

[squeeze berry]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

the constitution made no provisions for gun grabbing either

Sure they did.

Congress gets to make laws and stuff.

I know it's "icky" for folks like you..but that's the way it is..

then you could easily show us the law that prevents secession

 

[bripat9643]

Sure it does.

So does the Constitution.

There's absolutely nothing that supports your position.

Because some fruitcases went around saying they could secede and no one took them seriously doesn't mean it was possible.

When it was seriously tried? It seriously failed.

I have posted volumes of material that supports my position. You haven't posted jack shit.

You posted a bunch of newspaper editorials which are nothing more than opinions.

They were the educated opinions of people living at the time. What have you posted other than pure drivel?

 

[squeeze berry]

It's only considered an insurrection by boot-lickers like you. Most people living in the USA in 1860 did not consider it to be insurrection. That was purely a novel interpretation by the likes of Abraham Loncoln.

OK - so what are you trying to get at?

Do you think it should be legal for state to drop out of the union today? Is that your point?

Exactly, and the Civil War should never have happened.

you don't understand. the Federal govt is like the mob
once you are in you stay in or else

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from passing laws in conflict with federal law. No state could secede without violating the Supremacy clause.

Furthermore, residents of any individual state are for the most part also citizens of the United States, and that citizenship comes with certain rights, privileges, and protections of the federal government.

No state has the right to deny US citizens those rights, etc. Secession would do so.

The Constitution strictly prohibits states from doing what they did during the Civil War.

This has been pointed out to the OP, before.

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.

show us the secession clause

btw, once a state secedes, they are not under the influence of congress

States cannot make laws that conflict with federal law. They have agreed to that when they agreed to be governed by the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have posted volumes of material that supports my position. You haven't posted jack shit.

You posted a bunch of newspaper editorials which are nothing more than opinions.

They were the educated opinions of people living at the time. What have you posted other than pure drivel?

I posted the opposing opinion of the President of the United States at the time.

 

[bripat9643]

You posted a bunch of newspaper editorials which are nothing more than opinions.

They were the educated opinions of people living at the time. What have you posted other than pure drivel?

I posted the opposing opinion of the President of the United States at the time.

Lincoln was a lying tyrant. His opinion is entirely self-serving and isn't worth jack shit.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's only considered an insurrection by boot-lickers like you. Most people living in the USA in 1860 did not consider it to be insurrection. That was purely a novel interpretation by the likes of Abraham Loncoln.

OK - so what are you trying to get at?

Do you think it should be legal for state to drop out of the union today? Is that your point?

Exactly, and the Civil War should never have happened.

OK, let's just say you are correct.

What is the practical application? If you are trying to win support for a position that says states should be able to opt out of the Union today, you are wasting your time. It isn't goint to happen. The Civil War WAS fought and the victors (not the losers) get to call the shots.

There are consequences in losing a war (and elections).

We are not going to re-write that just because someone says we oughta.

You wanna re-fight the civil war. Have at it. If you survive and if you win, you may get to re-write a few things. Until then, you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution strictly prohibits states from doing what they did during the Civil War.

This has been pointed out to the OP, before.

show us the secession clause

btw, once a state secedes, they are not under the influence of congress

States cannot make laws that conflict with federal law. They have agreed to that when they agreed to be governed by the Constitution.

That agreement ends when they secede. Furthermore, there was no law against secession, so your argument is void.

 

[bripat9643]

OK - so what are you trying to get at?

Do you think it should be legal for state to drop out of the union today? Is that your point?

Exactly, and the Civil War should never have happened.

OK, let's just say you are correct.

What is the practical application? If you are trying to win support for a position that says states should be able to opt out of the Union today, you are wasting your time. It isn't goint to happen. The Civil War WAS fought and the victors (not the losers) get to call the shots.

There are consequences in losing a war (and elections).

We are not going to re-write that just because someone says we oughta.

You wanna re-fight the civil war. Have at it. If you survive and if you win, you may get to re-write a few things. Until then, you're just pissing in the wind.

Your post is utterly pointless.

 

[Joe Steel]

It was and still is Constitutional, states can never be subordinate to an entity they created.

Try again.

It says "We the People..." not we the States.

 

[bripat9643]

OK - so what are you trying to get at?

Do you think it should be legal for state to drop out of the union today? Is that your point?

Exactly, and the Civil War should never have happened.

you don't understand. the Federal govt is like the mob
once you are in you stay in or else

Correct. Your analogy is exact. In fact, it's not even an analogy. The federal government is nothing more than a gang of criminals.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Exactly, and the Civil War should never have happened.

OK, let's just say you are correct.

What is the practical application? If you are trying to win support for a position that says states should be able to opt out of the Union today, you are wasting your time. It isn't goint to happen. The Civil War WAS fought and the victors (not the losers) get to call the shots.

There are consequences in losing a war (and elections).

We are not going to re-write that just because someone says we oughta.

You wanna re-fight the civil war. Have at it. If you survive and if you win, you may get to re-write a few things. Until then, you're just pissing in the wind.

Your post is utterly pointless.

It is more useful and more realistic than the "volumes" you post on this topic.
Have a nice day, sir.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

So everything that isn't specifically allowed by the Constitution is prohibited? That is one of the dumbest arguments on this subject ever posted. However, it is the essence of the boot-licking liberal mentality.

No one believed the Constitution prohibited secession before 1861.

Lincoln did. I proved that and yet you can still make the above post.

 

[bripat9643]

It was and still is Constitutional, states can never be subordinate to an entity they created.

Try again.

It says "We the People..." not we the States.

How does that change the fact mentioned above?

 

[Dot Com]

oh for fuck's sake. ANOTHER rw (in this case bripat) "secessioner" thread. Didn't you people larn anything from your defeat in the War of Southern Rebellion?

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution made no provisions for Secession

If it was legal, the Constitution would have laid out rules for how a state joins the union and how it leaves the union

So everything that isn't specifically allowed by the Constitution is prohibited? That is one of the dumbest arguments on this subject ever posted. However, it is the essence of the boot-licking liberal mentality.

No one believed the Constitution prohibited secession before 1861.

Lincoln did. I proved that and yet you can still make the above post.

Lincoln was the only person in the entire country who believed it. That makes him something of a lunatic.

 

[bripat9643]

oh for fuck's sake. ANOTHER rw (in this case bripat) "secessioner" thread. Didn't you people larn anything from your defeat in the War of Southern Rebellion?

We learned the same thing France learned when the Nazis defeated them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bripat wrote, "This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession: "

Yes, many thought so, and they acted on it, and they paid the price.

 

[NYcarbineer]

show us the secession clause

btw, once a state secedes, they are not under the influence of congress

States cannot make laws that conflict with federal law. They have agreed to that when they agreed to be governed by the Constitution.

That agreement ends when they secede. Furthermore, there was no law against secession, so your argument is void.

lol, that's like saying if I declare I've seceded from my township, I no longer have to pay town taxes.

It's a ridiculous circular argument you're making.