Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No....They created a "perfect union".....as in.....And created a perpetual Union.13 self ruled Republics joined in the cause of united defense.Oh, and turn off your sound volume and tape the camera 'eye' shut.
And why we have a perpetual Union is so that, originally, thirteen states did not take into their collective minds to think they could war on one another.
That's not secession its renunciation of citizenship.You, as a person, have the right to secede. You can leave the country any time you want.If you have no right under the Constitution to secede, you have in effect become an enemy of the state and have reduced your role in the state to one controlled by Jurisprudence and corrections.Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.
I just proved there is, dumbass.
Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
So because the SCOTUS say's it would be unconstitutional, would you then be all for the U.S. military to be sent in to kill citizens of a state if they voted to have control of their own destiny by seceding ?
Perhaps the reason Texas is accumulating Gold.The best way to punish secession dissenters is to cut off their federal funds. They will come crawling back within a month because they did not get their checks.Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.
I just proved there is, dumbass.
Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
So because the SCOTUS say's it would be unconstitutional, would you then be all for the U.S. military to be sent in to kill citizens of a state if they voted to have control of their own destiny by seceding ?
No the threat is real(ly) in your head.Uh oh, you better check your computer for key loggers and your car for gps trackers and make sure your cell phones mic isn't listening to your conversations. The threat is real.Oh sure.. LIke we care....Fuck 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.
Folks do not know that?
The concept of a Union of the American States originated gradually during the 1770s as the independence struggle unfolded. In his First Inaugural Address on Monday March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated:
"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."
And created a perpetual Union.13 self ruled Republics joined in the cause of united defense.Oh, and turn off your sound volume and tape the camera 'eye' shut.
And why we have a perpetual Union is so that, originally, thirteen states did not take into their collective minds to think they could war on one another.
se·ces·sionThat's not secession its renunciation of citizenship.You, as a person, have the right to secede. You can leave the country any time you want.If you have no right under the Constitution to secede, you have in effect become an enemy of the state and have reduced your role in the state to one controlled by Jurisprudence and corrections.Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.I just proved there is, dumbass.
Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
So because the SCOTUS say's it would be unconstitutional, would you then be all for the U.S. military to be sent in to kill citizens of a state if they voted to have control of their own destiny by seceding ?
There is no real question here, of course. The illegality and illegitimacy of the so-called 'confederacy' has been long established legally, historically, and morally. The OP is just a headcase who gets off on self-abuse.
Whenever anyone feels obligated to tell us that their argument is 'Irrefutable', you know it is not.
Whenever anyone feels obligated to tell us that their argument is 'Irrefutable', you know it is not.
Then refute it.
Look behind you! No, the other behind you!!No the threat is real(ly) in your head.Uh oh, you better check your computer for key loggers and your car for gps trackers and make sure your cell phones mic isn't listening to your conversations. The threat is real.Oh sure.. LIke we care....Fuck 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.
Folks do not know that?
Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:
Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books
First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.
Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.
Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”
Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?
Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”
Why would you rely on this work of plagiarism when you may simply review the original argument for succession by its premiere author, Alexander Hamilton Stephens: A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States.
This is a constitutional argument in favor of succession in two glorious volumes compiled by the Vice President of former Confederacy. On the other hand, in Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase ruled against the notion of succession in two paragraphs:
It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
If you go by merely the length of the argument, with the longest argument winning, then Stephens wins. Therefore, any state that wishes to withdraw from the union should do so in accordance with Stephens' legal judgment. But, the government of the United States of America might not agree and history discloses that there might be consequences.
Whenever anyone feels obligated to tell us that their argument is 'Irrefutable', you know it is not.
Then refute it.
I had no reason to read further than "irrefutable"- and of course I knew that the thread was started by you.
There is no real question here, of course. The illegality and illegitimacy of the so-called 'confederacy' has been long established legally, historically, and morally. The OP is just a headcase who gets off on self-abuse.
Pure horseshit, of course.
Don't any of you Lincoln bootlickers have the cajones to address the arguments in the OP?
Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?
The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.
Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?
Why would there have needed to be a law ? Territories were allowed to freely enter the union, why would you have a system that once in you were forbidden to leave ?
That's immoral, and should be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has already made the decision 146 years ago. It is signed, sealed and delivered. How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.
The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.
It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.
How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.
Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?
Why would there have needed to be a law ? Territories were allowed to freely enter the union, why would you have a system that once in you were forbidden to leave ?
That's immoral, and should be unconstitutional.
The entire Civil War could have been avoided if the secessionists had sought a legal method of separation.
