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

[bripat9643]

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

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

Lincoln was the traitor, you boot-licking toad.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Actually it was.

 

[bripat9643]

'Perpetual Union'.

Was bleating this inanity supposed to prove something?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That had nothing to do with Clinton.

 

[bripat9643]

'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

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Go live with the people who think the income tax is unconstitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

'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

The original documents that created the nation, the Articles of Confederation, used the term. The Constitution continued the Union with modifications to the government.

Yeah, it was so "perpetual" that the Founding Father's threw it into the waste bin when they wrote and passed the Constitution.

 

[IsaacNewton]

"You're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening."


That's it. That is the whole thing in one sentence. Conservatives trying to paint something absolutely heinous, that cost the lives of 600,000 Americans, as something noble.

Move all the con-federate memorabilia into museums where you cons can go visit them and get your sad on.

The rest of the nation moved on without you long ago. Why don't you join us back here in reality.

 

[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

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.

it's settled if you follow the constitution. that's the case law clarifying the constitution. that's the law of the land.

 

[ogibillm]

'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

The original documents that created the nation, the Articles of Confederation, used the term. The Constitution continued the Union with modifications to the government.

Yeah, it was so "perpetual" that the Founding Father's threw it into the waste bin when they wrote and passed the Constitution.

no, they didn't. the union remained, the government changed - it became 'a more perfect union' not a different union.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Go live with the people who think the income tax is unconstitutional.

Although a crime against humanity, It's obviously Constitutional. However, the IRS code is not Constitutional.

 

[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.

it's settled if you follow the constitution. that's the case law clarifying the constitution. that's the law of the land.

What does it mean to "follow the Constitution." The decision may have the force of law, but that doesn't make it correct in any objective sense. Of course, the Nuremberg laws also had the force of law.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Go live with the people who think the income tax is unconstitutional.

Although a crime against humanity, It's obviously Constitutional. However, the IRS code is not Constitutional.

oh i get it. you're just fucking crazy. and there is no alito court. it's the roberts court.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That was only one of the many things Lincoln did that violated the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'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

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Go live with the people who think the income tax is unconstitutional.

Although a crime against humanity, It's obviously Constitutional. However, the IRS code is not Constitutional.

oh i get it. you're just fucking crazy. and there is no alito court. it's the roberts court.

Whatever. How does that make me crazy? Does the 5th Amendment mean you are not required to incriminate yourself?

 

[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

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.

it's settled if you follow the constitution. that's the case law clarifying the constitution. that's the law of the land.

What does it mean to "follow the Constitution." The decision may have the force of law, but that doesn't make it correct in any objective sense. Of course, the Nuremberg laws also had the force of law.

you're confused. secession is not permitted by the constitution. this is made clear in the texas v white case. when one adheres to, or follows the constitution, one knows that case law does not 'have the force of law' but is in fact clarification of existing law.

 

[bripat9643]

'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

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

Lincoln was the traitor, you boot-licking toad.

No matter how many times you advertise your ignorance, stupidity, and moral bankruptcy; your whining will never change reality, loser wannabe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'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

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

Quitting the club as you call necessitates violating the Supremacy Clause so they can't constitutionally do it.

 

[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.

it's settled if you follow the constitution. that's the case law clarifying the constitution. that's the law of the land.

What does it mean to "follow the Constitution." The decision may have the force of law, but that doesn't make it correct in any objective sense. Of course, the Nuremberg laws also had the force of law.

you're confused. secession is not permitted by the constitution. this is made clear in the texas v white case. when one adheres to, or follows the constitution, one knows that case law does not 'have the force of law' but is in fact clarification of existing law.

As I have already explained, Texas v. White is a bullshit decision. It's so obviously flawed that you have to be brained damaged not to see the problem with the arguments used.

Only morons believe case law is the final authority on the Constitution.