If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

[OKTexas]

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

no, it doesn't supersede the constitution. caselaw clarifies the constitution. caselaw says that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede, and until and unless that caselaw is overturned by another decision or an amendment, that's the law of the land.

Right, case law that didn't exist until after the war, so you would agree that at the time the south seceded it was Constitutional, right?

no. case law clarifies, but it does not make a thing constitutional or not. if it was ruled unconstitutional after the fact, it was not somehow constitutional before. the constitution did not change.

Exactly what part of the Constitution did they clarify, quote section and clause. You can't clarify something that's not there to begin with.

 

[Boss]

There have been debates over whether states have the right to secede from the US. Currently, the SCOTUS says they can't, but that was not the case in 1861 and it wasn't even settled after the Civil War. It has remained a constitutional question which has been highly debated through the years.

When we look at our actual founding as a country, we see that our foundation as a nation rests on the argument:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

One can clearly argue that it's not only our human right to secede, we are required to declare the causes of it. So is this, "do as we say and not as we do" time? Because, clearly we have the human right to declare secession from ANY government at ANY time.

 

[bendog]

There have been debates over whether states have the right to secede from the US. Currently, the SCOTUS says they can't, but that was not the case in 1861 and it wasn't even settled after the Civil War. It has remained a constitutional question which has been highly debated through the years.

When we look at our actual founding as a country, we see that our foundation as a nation rests on the argument:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

One can clearly argue that it's not only our human right to secede, we are required to declare the causes of it. So is this, "do as we say and not as we do" time? Because, clearly we have the human right to declare secession from ANY government at ANY time.

That argument does not logically work, though it's been tried. The Founders justification for rebellion was that they were denied representation. The Founders repeatedly asked to be allowed a voice in parliament, but it was denied. "Taxation without representation."

The South was never denied representation. However, their argument was that with the Missouri compromise dead, eventually there would be a majority in the senate from non-slave states.

 

[there4eyeM]

The original agreement was a Perpetual Union.

 

[bendog]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Except as pointed out by the left so many times, the preamble is not part of the actual Constitution, otherwise, the feds would be promoting the general welfare instead of providing for it.

Well, it's simply bad legal reasoning to say a preamble has no meaning or effect. I would agree that anything in the articles of confederation doesn't really apply, because the purpose of the constitutional convention was to draft something with a stronger federal govt, while preserving state sovereignty over ... some things. The BOR supposedly settled what some things was.

 

[there4eyeM]

It isn't the preamble. It is the original Union, the one that was added to by the Constitution "in order to form a more perfect Union".

 

[OKTexas]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Except as pointed out by the left so many times, the preamble is not part of the actual Constitution, otherwise, the feds would be promoting the general welfare instead of providing for it.

Well, it's simply bad legal reasoning to say a preamble has no meaning or effect. I would agree that anything in the articles of confederation doesn't really apply, because the purpose of the constitutional convention was to draft something with a stronger federal govt, while preserving state sovereignty over ... some things. The BOR supposedly settled what some things was.

No, the States were supposed to maintains sovereignty over most things. The powers of the fed were spelled out in primarily in Article 1, the 10th Amendment just reiterated that there were no other implied powers that were seceded to the feds, that anything not enumerated in the Constitution was retained by the States and the people.

 

[Boss]

There have been debates over whether states have the right to secede from the US. Currently, the SCOTUS says they can't, but that was not the case in 1861 and it wasn't even settled after the Civil War. It has remained a constitutional question which has been highly debated through the years.

When we look at our actual founding as a country, we see that our foundation as a nation rests on the argument:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

One can clearly argue that it's not only our human right to secede, we are required to declare the causes of it. So is this, "do as we say and not as we do" time? Because, clearly we have the human right to declare secession from ANY government at ANY time.

That argument does not logically work, though it's been tried. The Founders justification for rebellion was that they were denied representation. The Founders repeatedly asked to be allowed a voice in parliament, but it was denied. "Taxation without representation."

The South was never denied representation. However, their argument was that with the Missouri compromise dead, eventually there would be a majority in the senate from non-slave states.

Well it does logically work because it doesn't state "when it becomes necessary under certain circumstances..."

We clearly have the right to self-govern and whenever our government no longer represents us, we have the right to secede from it. When the Union basically says they don't give two shits about your 4th Amendment rights to property, we're going to take it anyway... that is not 'representing' those people and that was the case regarding the South. They were about to take it in the shorts on a billion dollars worth of property they owned, which the courts said they could own, which was perfectly legal and accepted for them to own, for their fathers and grandfathers to own as well. Yes, it was morally reprehensible but that was the law back then, that's the nation we established, that's the rulings of the high court, that's the political policies of all parties from before we were even a nation. A certain segment of people want to dismiss or excuse all of that and put the onus and blame ALL on the South.

They were Constitutionally justified to be pissed off and ready to secede from the Union. Their complaint was legitimate. The US Courts had determined this was okay, it had upheld it for generations. Congress after Congress condoned legal slave ownership and slaves as property. President after president upheld the same thing. Yet... ALL of it is now placed squarely around the neck of The South and they are condemned for it. and because the North won the war, they have continued to be condemned for it... like scapegoats for the Northerners to use in avoiding any responsibility whatsoever.

 

[mikegriffith1]

All this screaming against the Confederate flag is illogical and nonsensical. At least thousands of people have been outright murdered under the banner of the Stars and Stripes (the American flag), but liberals and week-kneed conservatives are going crazy because one nutty, evil young man happened to display a Confederate flag on his clothing and his website.

Dylan Roof desecrated the American flag, but I don't see any liberals calling for a ban on flag burning. Why not? If, as liberals seem to assume, displaying the Confederate flag somehow at least partly motivated Roof to commit his atrocious action, logic would demand that his burning of the American flag also contributed to his decision to murder innocent black churchgoers.

Roof's heinous act is just an excuse for the left to bash and attack the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag's original intended meaning had nothing to do with Roof's actions and disturbed beliefs.

 

[Nyvin]

Youknow, I constantly hear on this website how the Republicans are the party of anti-slavery and how the evil Democrats wanted to secede from the country in support of slavery cause they're racists and yada yada....and yet here's an example of where that's all just a facade.

If Republicans were authentic about wanting to be the anti-slavery party they'd have nothing to do with the confederate flag. Yet here they all are supporting it left and right, wtf.

 

[Boss]

Youknow, I constantly hear on this website how the Republicans are the party of anti-slavery and how the evil Democrats wanted to secede from the country in support of slavery cause they're racists and yada yada....and yet here's an example of where that's all just a facade.

If Republicans were authentic about wanting to be the anti-slavery party they'd have nothing to do with the confederate flag. Yet here they all are supporting it left and right, wtf.

....they'd have nothing to do with the confederate flag.

 

[OKTexas]

Youknow, I constantly hear on this website how the Republicans are the party of anti-slavery and how the evil Democrats wanted to secede from the country in support of slavery cause they're racists and yada yada....and yet here's an example of where that's all just a facade.

If Republicans were authentic about wanting to be the anti-slavery party they'd have nothing to do with the confederate flag. Yet here they all are supporting it left and right, wtf.

You seem to be confusing a flag with individual rights.

 

[Dot Com]

The Rebel flag is a cartoon flag. Time to go in the dustbin of history Who said that? No matter.

 

[ogibillm]

If Bripat were around the confederacy would have invaded Mexico to oppose Northern tyranny.

The north invaded the south. You fail

there was no invasion.you cannot invade your own country.

It wasn't Lincoln's country, asshole. They seceded. Do you know what "seceded" means" Look it up.

good lord you're dumb. sure, they said they seceded. i could say i'm king of the andals and the first men, lord of the Seven kingdoms, and protector of the realm. doesn't mean i get to plant my ass on the iron throne.

the secession was illegal. they never left the united states, they just played at it.

The ONLY WAY Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation could be Constitutional was IF the CSA was it's own sovereign country. As states of the United States, he did not have such authority under the Constitution. It was ONLY because the CSA was an "foreign enemy of state" that he could render the proclamation legally.

Just an FYI.

so you say. and you may be right. doesn't matter. the secession was not legal, the never actually seceded, they just played at it.

 

[ogibillm]

There have been debates over whether states have the right to secede from the US. Currently, the SCOTUS says they can't, but that was not the case in 1861 and it wasn't even settled after the Civil War. It has remained a constitutional question which has been highly debated through the years.

no, it's settled. texas v white, 1869. individual states cannot secede

 

[bripat9643]

See the 10th Amendment.

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

no, it doesn't supersede the constitution. caselaw clarifies the constitution. caselaw says that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede, and until and unless that caselaw is overturned by another decision or an amendment, that's the law of the land.

Case law doesn't "clarify" anything. What it does is allow a bunch of hacks selected by politicians to subvert the Constitution the the benefit of those in power. It requires a supreme gullibility to believe that case law has any connection with objectivity or truth.

Lincoln's hand picked hacks decided secession wasn't constitutional. That decision is about as credible as the Alito Court's decision that Obamacare was a tax.

 

[ogibillm]

a good argument, but i point you to texas v white

Oh right, a union court upholding union concepts, after the fact, Surprise, surprise. I guess you agree with the Dred Scott decision also.

the supreme court decides issues of constitutionality, does it not?

secession on the part of an individual state is not allowed by the constitution. this is decided case law.

Case law does not supersede the Constitution, courts get it wrong all the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a state may not withdraw from the union.

no, it doesn't supersede the constitution. caselaw clarifies the constitution. caselaw says that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede, and until and unless that caselaw is overturned by another decision or an amendment, that's the law of the land.

Case law doesn't "clarify" anything. What it does is allow a bunch of hacks selected by politicians to subvert the Constitution the the benefit of those in power. It requires a supreme gullibility to believe that case law has any connection with objectivity or truth.

seriously, did you ever go to a history or civics class? even in elementary or middle school?

you are ignorant about basic facts.

 

[Unkotare]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

Nice sarcasm.

 

[Unkotare]

Lincoln's hand picked hacks decided secession wasn't constitutional. ...

Still trying to fight a fellow traitor's losing battle, sad-sack wannabe?

 

[bripat9643]

There have been debates over whether states have the right to secede from the US. Currently, the SCOTUS says they can't, but that was not the case in 1861 and it wasn't even settled after the Civil War. It has remained a constitutional question which has been highly debated through the years.

no, it's settled. texas v white, 1869. individual states cannot secede

It's "settled" only if you have a big appetite for horseshit. Lincoln put a majority of the justices on the court that made that decision.