Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[James Everett]

Unkotare has completely eviscerated James' nonsense.

No one takes the Cheerleader shaking his POM POMS seriously JAKE.

 

[James Everett]

Let's ask Justice Scalia:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "


Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog

Again, We see that YOUR so called Justice referred to the issue as being settled by war, NOT LAW.
He was deflecting because just as was the case 140 years ago.
The BS pledge of allegiance wasn't penned until 1892, lon after secession, this is tantamount to ex post facto.
As we see Scalia is stating that the U.S. Kangaroo court would not hear such a case. Why? because the truth would be exposed. The issue is above the SCOTUS and beyond its jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is limited in Article III section 2.

You're wasting your breath. Unk is too busy humping his table leg to even try to understand your explanation.

I know. Neither he nor his hump date JAKE are intellectually capable of anything beyond their base indoctrination.... CSAgov.org

 

[RKMBrown]

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

-Salmon P. Chase

Yeah, and he was a POS. All the civil war proved is that a murderous president has the power to kill hundreds of thousands of people with little to no resistance from murderous pieces of shit like you who stand by and celebrate, even dance over the graves of dead children.

 

[Unkotare]

YOUR so called Justice.

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

 

[James Everett]

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

-Salmon P. Chase

But secession was indeed accomplished, as we see from the FACT that YOUR U.S. Required conditions for re-admittance, if the States were still part of the union, then re-admission would NOT be required.
However the real cold hard fact is that they never were re-admitted, they were simply forced into a state of exile and replaced with new occupation governments under new CONstitutions. No surrender of the CSA government or Constitution were ever made, and no peace treaty ever concluded between the USA and the CSA, but that is of no consequence to the Yankee who disregard even their own laws and CONstitution.

 

[Unkotare]

All the civil war proved is that a murderous president has the power to kill hundreds of thousands of people with little to no resistance from murderous pieces of shit like you who stand by and celebrate, even dance over the graves of dead children.

That was an extremely poor attempt at appeal to emotion. You and are fellow loser are extremely logic-deficient.

 

[James Everett]

YOUR so called Justice.

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

 

[Unkotare]

YOUR so called Justice.

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

 

[James Everett]

YOUR so called Justice.

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

Your childish smiley faces do not help your case. I do understand what I post.
Lets go a little further in your reference to Texas v white and the false assertion that it was a case concerning secession.....
"This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union."

If Texas never ceased to be a state, then the 1845 Texas constitution would have to be the proper constitution, since it was the constitution in force at the time of the "rebellion." The 1868 "carpet bagger" constitution, and the 1876 constitution, were both ratified under the cloud of armed invasion, and restricted the vote for ratification in defiance of the 1845 constitution, making both those ratification efforts invalid.

Using the U.S. Supreme Court's own decision, the proper state constitution must be the 1845 document, for it was the constitution approved by the people prior to the rebellion."
If you close your eyes and ears to the truth and yell La, la, la, la ,la like a child then the truth escapes you.

 

[Unkotare]

YOUR so called Justice.

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

I do understand what I post....

It is clear that you do not.

 

[James Everett]

YOUR so called Justice.

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

I do understand what I post....

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

 

[Unkotare]

If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...

"The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.

 

[Unkotare]

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

I do understand what I post....

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

 

[James Everett]

If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...

"The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.

No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.

 

[James Everett]

Well there is de jure and defacto, force does not make de jure what is defacto.

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

I do understand what I post....

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

 

[Unkotare]

Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!

I do understand what I post....

It is clear that you do not.

There are a great many who disagree with you.

Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.

You are a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...

"The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.

No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.

In other words, you want to believe your little imagination has the power to shape reality. It doesn't. I quoted actual Supreme Court Justices and legal findings. You're a bitter little loser playing make-pretend.

 

[James Everett]

If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...

"The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.

No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.

In other words, you want to believe your little imagination has the power to shape reality. It doesn't. I quoted actual Supreme Court Justices and legal findings. You're a bitter little loser playing make-pretend.

It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated, you choose to follow those who you believe because you are a sheep who look to others as authoritative. I am not a sheep, I do not believe that nine political appointees are more schooled in YOUR CONstitutional system, the founder's or framers intent than do I.
These nine Justices are politically bias, this is why you have "Liberal" and "Conservative" appointees, they have been infected with the same indoctrination as you, and many many others.
I have debated with both sitting and retired CONstitutional lawyers and have found that those with which I have debated could not explain the two systems that were cobbled together to form the original 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and I doubt that you could either.
If one cannot grasp the very foundation of the system, then one cannot possibly understand how it was suppose to function.
All that these morons were able to describe are the three branches and the separation of powers, and that is base at best.
No I do not recognize politically appointed fools as an authority on understanding much of anything.

 

[James Everett]

If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...

"The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.

No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.

In other words, you want to believe your little imagination has the power to shape reality. It doesn't. I quoted actual Supreme Court Justices and legal findings. You're a bitter little loser playing make-pretend.

 

[Unkotare]

It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.

You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.