Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[bripat9643]

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.

Another boot-licking proponent of the "might makes right" theory of justice.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

 

[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.

Another boot-licking proponent of the "might makes right" theory of justice.

A personal attack does not make for effective refutation. What did I write that was wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

Why are you against sensible forms of government? I think you simply don't like paying any taxes and resent authority telling you what you have to do.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Another boot-licking proponent of the "might makes right" theory of justice.

A personal attack does not make for effective refutation. What did I write that was wrong?

Your "might makes right" theory of justice is wrong. If you don't know why, then I can't help you.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

Why are you against sensible forms of government? I think you simply don't like paying any taxes and resent authority telling you what you have to do.

You didn't answer the question, Fakey.

 

[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.

How does that change the fact mentioned above?

The document we call the Constitution is, in fact, a compact with a constitution. The preamble is a compact which forms a political body, the United States, when it says "we the people of the United States." It is establishes their sovereignty. As sovereign, the United States is theirs to maintain or abrogate. The power does not belong with the States. The States exist at the pleasure of the People.

 

[candycorn]

The issue was settled at Appamatox Court House. The United States is one nation. Indivisable.

And fools like you are traitors.

Right, it was "settled" with an iron fist, not with reason.

All you've said is that might makes right - the logic of the schoolyard bully and the dictator.

Despite your attempts at revisionist history, the South shot first. They started it, the North ended it.

I'm sure when they fired on Fort Sumpter, those were "reasonable" cannon balls being fired.

You're a professional dumbass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

Why are you against sensible forms of government? I think you simply don't like paying any taxes and resent authority telling you what you have to do.

You didn't answer the question, Fakey.

Because it is not a sensible question. If the laws are approved by We the People so that folks can secede from the township, then they can.

Because you don't like taxes and resent authority, you oppose sensible forms of government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Try again.

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

How does that change the fact mentioned above?

The document we call the Constitution is, in fact, a compact with a constitution. The preamble is a compact which forms a political body, the United States, when it says "we the people of the United States." It is establishes their sovereignty. As sovereign, the United States is theirs to maintain or abrogate. The power does not belong with the States. The States exist at the pleasure of the People.

The Calhounites, who believed in the authority of the State not the People, would not have agreed with you.

 

[bripat9643]

The issue was settled at Appamatox Court House. The United States is one nation. Indivisable.

And fools like you are traitors.

Right, it was "settled" with an iron fist, not with reason.

All you've said is that might makes right - the logic of the schoolyard bully and the dictator.

Despite your attempts at revisionist history, the South shot first. They started it, the North ended it.

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 when they fired on Fort Sumpter, those were "reasonable" cannon balls being fired.

I'm sure you're a moron.

You're a professional dumbass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat's revision is now out of hand. He is clearly in loonyville.

Paperview, if she still frequents the Board, will come in and clean his clock with the real evidence and the acceptable conclusions.

Unsubscribe.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are you against sensible forms of government? I think you simply don't like paying any taxes and resent authority telling you what you have to do.

You didn't answer the question, Fakey.

Because it is not a sensible question. If the laws are approved by We the People so that folks can secede from the township, then they can.

Because you don't like taxes and resent authority, you oppose sensible forms of government.

You don't answer the question because you can't. Who says the township is "sensible?"

 

[bripat9643]

Try again.

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

How does that change the fact mentioned above?

The document we call the Constitution is, in fact, a compact with a constitution. The preamble is a compact which forms a political body, the United States, when it says "we the people of the United States." It is establishes their sovereignty. As sovereign, the United States is theirs to maintain or abrogate. The power does not belong with the States. The States exist at the pleasure of the People.

The states approved the Constitution. As the creators of the pact, they are free to dissolve it whenever they wish. They idea of a contract that you can't abrogate is inimical to every concept of law we accept.

 

[Dot Com]

Has bripat refuted the fact that Amendments can be added to the constitution yet?

We are a nation of laws bripat. If you want something changed, you do so following a legal process. You tinpot generals want to just fire your M-14's. Buy a clue tard

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another boot-licking proponent of the "might makes right" theory of justice.

A personal attack does not make for effective refutation. What did I write that was wrong?

Your "might makes right" theory of justice is wrong. If you don't know why, then I can't help you.

Wasn't it 'might' that enabled the very formation of the United States? Wasn't it force of arms by which independence was won?

If that 'theory' is wrong, in your judgment, then the United States never legitimately won its independence from Britain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Andrew Jackson:

The Constitution, said Jackson, derives its whole authority from the people, not the States.

The States "retained all the power they did not grant.

But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation."

The Claremont Institute - The Case Against Secession

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Why shouldn't you be able to secede from your township?

Why are you against sensible forms of government? I think you simply don't like paying any taxes and resent authority telling you what you have to do.

Bingo! You're starting to get it.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

We showed you that at Appamotox Court House. But this time, if this insanity is tried again, it will only be a few thousand miscreants, and the proper response will be to hang them all as traitors.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 Jefferson’s 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

Not every citizen of a state would like their home to be removed from The Union. I wonder why bripat and others want to focus on secession, if they don't like living in the UNITED States of America why don't they and he get the fuck out of my county?

It's my country too, asshole, and I don't like the gang of thieves who are running it.

Fine, run for office (would you vote for yourself?)

I focus on secession because the threat of such is the only thing that can keep a tyrannical government like the one we have limited in scope.

Your understanding of tyranny borders on the absurd. You have every right you had when GWB was POTUS. The greatest threat to liberty and freedom resides in an authoritarian Supreme Court which recently has threatened the idea,

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.

Three things need to be accomplished in my opinion to restore sanity to our government:

1. A COTUS Amendment giving the POTUS the Line-Item Veto and also allowing for any such veto to be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both the Senate and H. of Rep.;

2. A COTUS Amendment wherein the POTUS serves only a single six-year term of office;

3. A COTUS Amendment which requires each member of the Supreme Court to serve no more than three Ten year terms, and be returned to the court for 10 years only upon receiving at least 50% plus one vote in a nation-wide referendum, with mandatory retirement at age 75th Birthday notwithstanding the date of their third successful ratification by the people.