Confederate constitution legalized slavery

[James Everett]

Th
there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .

No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.

By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....

Here's one humorous little gem, for example:

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.

Well, let's examine this little gem....
De jure means .....
"By right of law"
De facto means....
"In reality, or fact"....

You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.

And now you know that.

Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as you, he never cited law, he, stated, that the war seemed to have decided the issue, which is Not by law, but by unlawful force since neither he nor you can cite a law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful. So YOU, and anyone who believe your fiction are FOOLS as well.
Such an ignorant are you, that you were unable to answer my simple questions concerning your own CONstitution. You have no understanding of it or law.
You thought you knew something bit you know nothing, you thought I didn't understand the term I use, thus challenged me, and made a fool of yourself by exposing that you didn't understand them. As I stated, you are in way way over your education.
Scalia made a fool of you and so have I, because I am able to understand what Scalia was doing with his play on words, yet you were not.
De jure/De facto, colorable,words and their definitions you need to remember.
No secession was not, nor is not illegal, war does not a law make. War is not prescribed by YOUR CONstitution as a legislative act.
Scalia knows this, fools such as you do not.
Again, neither you nor SCALIA can cite the law that makes secession illegal, therefore both of you deflect.
Such won't fly here or in LAW.

 

[Unkotare]

No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.

By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....

Here's one humorous little gem, for example:

A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.

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

Well, let's examine this little gem....
De jure means .....
"By right of law"
De facto means....
"In reality, or fact"....

You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.

And now you know that.

Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as yo...

Your obvious attempt at changing the subject has been noted, dope.

 

[James Everett]

By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....

Here's one humorous little gem, for example:

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

Well, let's examine this little gem....
De jure means .....
"By right of law"
De facto means....
"In reality, or fact"....

You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.

And now you know that.

Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as yo...

Your obvious attempt at changing the subject has been noted, dope.

I didn't change the subject, I explained what you didn't understand, and it was directly in DIRECT response to the subject to which you posted.

 

[Unkotare]

neither he nor you can cite a law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful. ...

The US Supreme Court has cited the Constitution. The law of the land, you moron.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's one humorous little gem, for example:

Well, let's examine this little gem....
De jure means .....
"By right of law"
De facto means....
"In reality, or fact"....

You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.

And now you know that.

Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as yo...

Your obvious attempt at changing the subject has been noted, dope.

I didn't change the subject, I explained what you didn't understand, and it was directly in DIRECT response to the subject to which you posted.

You were commenting on Justice Scalia, you ignorant fool.

 

[Unkotare]

No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

 

[James Everett]

No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute, nor did they cite the Article which states that secession is illegal, unlawful,or a violation of YOUR CONstitution. "Considered a transaction under the CONstitution".
Further in their own opinion....
"While Texas was controlled by a government hostile to the United States, and in affiliation with a hostile confederation, waging war upon the United States, no suit instituted in her name could be maintained in this court. It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States, under the constitution before such a suit could be prosecuted."
Only a fool with closed eyes and mind, willfully ignorant, or blinded by emotion to the point that logic escapes his mental faculties could he not see the contradiction necessary in the Kangaroo court opinion.
Lets review: shall we?
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation."
"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
Yet then the Kangaroo court after stating that.....
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation."
The Kangaroo court goes on to state that....
It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
NOTE HERE THAT THE KANGAROO COURT STATED THAT TEXAS ENTERED INTO AN INDISSOLUBLE UNION, THEN STATES THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO BRING TEXAS BACK UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
If Texas could not have dissolved its relation with the union, then there was NO NEED TO BRING IT BACK UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
Nor would TEXAS be required to meet certain conditions to re-enter the union as was required.
The point is that even your KANGAROO court understands that once a State exits the union, it is no longer under the Kangaroo courts jurisdiction, this is why it was stated that....
It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States, under the constitution before such a suit could be prosecuted."
As long as Texas was out of the union the U.S. Kangaroo court had no jurisdiction, this is why war was necessary to replace the de jure government of Texas via a revolutionary act, outside of LAW.
This is why Scalia used the play on words.
You see, YOUR government through Lincoln's assistance of the Northern States was in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitution, hence the act was a revolutionary act, meaning YOUR government became colorable/de facto, The Kangaroo court is part of that government, hence de facto/colorable. It actions and opinions are outside of real law.
This is why we witness the play on words.
The Kangaroo court never cited LAW concerning secession.
Do you remember my explanation to you concerning DICTA?
Let us use.....
Pollard's lessee v. Hagan as an example...
The SCOTUS in 1840 cited LAW in their opinion....
"3 Story's Laws 1634-1635. And, by the 2d article of the compact contained in the Ordinance of 1787, which was then in force in the Mississippi territory, among other things, it was provided, that"....
We see NO citation of law in Texas v White, what we see is an opinion based NOT IN LAW, under the U.S. CONstitution, but we do see an opinion based on an assumption in a train of events, NOT in U.S. case law, or Constitutional law.
Earlier courts before Lincoln's rebellion rendered opposing opinions to that of "Texas v White, which was after all a case concerning BONDS, NOT secession.....
Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:

"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:

"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?

"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
Sorry but you lose yet again.

 

[Unkotare]

No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute

Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.

 

[James Everett]

No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute

Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.

Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. There is no CONstitutional mention of a transaction being illegal, nor is there a mention of secession being illegal. For something to be illegal, there must be a law in place stating that such is illegal. Now, cite the law that CONGRESS ever passed that states that secession is illegal, or cite the Constitution wherein a transaction is illegal.
The ordinances of secession were within operation of law, as a law must be passed making something illegal, otherwise it is lawful and legal.
Please cite the law, because YOUR SCOTUS has not.
Fiction is NOT reality, it is a fiction to state that something is illegal when no law exists making an act illegal, THAT SIR is REALITY.
Now again, cite the law.
There is no law under the CONstitution stating that secession is illegal therefore Article III section 2. applies.....
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"
Now, the Kangaroo court must render an opinion on a case based in law, therefore a law must be in place, so again, cite that law.
The fact is that the States, (Which are by definition under Johnson's dictionary of the English language 1755 edition) which is the definition that both the Founders' and the Framers' would have considered when framing both the 1781, and 1787 Constitutions is ....
"A mode of government", now YOUR Kangaroo court attempts to redefine just what a State is when rendering their opinion.
The case even were it a case on secession, is so full of contradiction, fictional definitions, not to mention a court of Lincoln appointees which should all have recused themselves, is nothing less than a joke.
Your SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear a case on the secessions of the Southern States, as they were at the point of secession no longer under YOUR CONstitution, and YOUR SCOTUS stated so.....
"It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States, under the constitution before such a suit could be prosecuted."
The propblem that YOUR Court has is that the Southern States were never restored under YOUR CONstitution, as a State is by definition "A MODE OF GOVERNMENT", AND A MODE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE REPUBLICAN FORM, WAS REQUIRED FOR A TERRITORY TO BECOME A MEMBER STATE IN THE UNION. IT FIRST HAD TO BECOME A STATE FROM A TERRITORY, meaning it had to become a form of government to be a State before it could be accepted as a "Member State.
Here again YOUR SCOTUS twisted what a State is in its joke of an opinion.
The States that left the union were replaced under martial law and occupation with de facto institutions., hence those Confederate States were no longer party to the union, and no longer under YOUR CONstitution, hence outside of YOUR SCOTUS jurisdiction.

 

[Unkotare]

No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute

Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.

Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...

Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.

 

[Unkotare]

The ordinances of secession were within operation of law...

The US Supreme Court found exactly the opposite, you uneducated buffoon.

 

[James Everett]

No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute

Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.

Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...

Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.

At this point I am feeling a little guilty about picking on you and showing you for the ignorant that you are, therefore I am going to assist you at this point by giving you direction so that you may stop floundering about......
What you need to do at this point is look to YOUR CONstitution and find which Article and section wherein it states that.....
This union is a consolidation of the States into a single entity under a wholly national government system.
Or that a member State within the union may not secede from this union of States.
Or a power delegated by the States to the United States= (the States in union collectively) to prevent an individual State from seceding from the union.
If you are able to do this, then you can get around the tenth amendment which states.....

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

If you are unable to find such within and article of YOUR CONstitution, then you may search U.S. law for the statute and number that states that secession is unlawful or illegal, then you just may have a chance at reality, otherwise you are lost in fiction.

"

 

[James Everett]

The ordinances of secession were within operation of law...

The US Supreme Court found exactly the opposite, you uneducated buffoon.

Again, I have already explained that YOUR SCOTUS is the result of a revolutionary act, and has no jurisdiction outside YOUR CONstitution, and without being able to cite a law or statute in the matter, then it is acting as a Kangaroo court.

 

[James Everett]

The ordinances of secession were within operation of law...

The US Supreme Court found exactly the opposite, you uneducated buffoon.

One cannot win a case in law, without being able to cite a law.

 

[Ravi]

Article IV - The States
Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power


to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[James Everett]

Article IV - The States
Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power


to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Clause I,
This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia.
Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
As for clause II...,
A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings .
YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.

 

[Ravi]

Article IV - The States
Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power


to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Clause I,
This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia.
Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
As for clause II...,
A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings .
YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.

States were territories before they were accepted as states. They also fall under "other property belonging to the United States."

Sucks to be you.

 

[James Everett]

Article IV - The States
Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power


to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Clause I,
This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia.
Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
As for clause II...,
A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings .
YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.

States were territories before they were accepted as states. They also fall under "other property belonging to the United States."

Sucks to be you.

None of you Yankees know what you are talking about. Once a territory becomes a State, the United States at that point cedes all municipal jurisdiction to that State. The U.S. Does not own a State, the U.S. Was a union of States, neither owning the other either singularly or collectively. You need to read YOUR SCOTUS opinion in the case that I cited, and then I will cite others for you wherein the same opinion was rendered.
Note to all Yankees.....
Educate yourselves before attempting to contradict me.

 

[Unkotare]

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute

Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.

Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...

Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.

At this point I am feeling a little guilty about picking on you

"

What you are feeling is embarrassed at being exposed for the ridiculous, ignorant wannabe revisionist that EVERYONE reading this thread sees you for.

 

[James Everett]

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute

Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.

Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...

Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.

At this point I am feeling a little guilty about picking on you

"

What you are feeling is embarrassed at being exposed for the ridiculous, ignorant wannabe revisionist that EVERYONE reading this thread sees you for.

What I'm feeling, is that The truth backed by facts, and citation have defeated you and the other Yankees at every turn , and all that you ever had to contribute has been that of the intellect of an eight year old boy making fart noises with his armpit. As I have stated.....
You Yankees need to educate yourselves before attempting to contradict me.