Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

The Supreme Court decided nothing. It simply rubber stamped Lincoln's invasion because that's what the members were hired to do.

Some things within the law are not settled, Roe v Wade would be one of those. When a law has gone a significant number of years and is not challenged it becomes settled law. Instances of that would be Brown v Board of Education and Marbury v Madison. Texas v White is settled law and is considered beyond dispute. That's the way it works in this country not the way you would like it to work.

How long did the Plessy v Ferguson decision stay in force before it was over turned?

 

[Syriusly]

When someone states in their title 'irrefutable Legal Argument'-

all he is saying is that he will disregard anything anyone says that contradicts his own opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Like when the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? The whole premise of your argument is that the court is infallible.

Whoops!

Whoever said the law was perfect?

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

You must use all of your fingers and toes to count. Unless you are a medical miracle 146 yrs is what we are talking about. You should have tried sooner.

So how would I contest a law 146 years ago?

You really are an incredible dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

When someone states in their title 'irrefutable Legal Argument'-

all he is saying is that he will disregard anything anyone says that contradicts his own opinion.

None of you have even tried to refute any of the statements in the OP.

 

[bripat9643]

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”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
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. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Agreed.

These Lincoln cultists are pathetic, aren't they?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

The Supreme Court decided nothing. It simply rubber stamped Lincoln's invasion because that's what the members were hired to do.

If you believe in any legitimate authority to make, interpret, and enforce the rules,

then you don't believe in government.

BINGO!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I realize you don't want to expose yourself to ideas that make you feel uncomfortable with your prejudices.

I haven't yet read a post of yourself that has made me uncomfortable.

I have laughed in derision quite a few times.

That's because you don't understand what a profound dumbass you are.

 

[nuhuh]

Whoever said the law was perfect?

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

You must use all of your fingers and toes to count. Unless you are a medical miracle 146 yrs is what we are talking about. You should have tried sooner.

So how would I contest a law 146 years ago?

You really are an incredible dumbass.

You don't get it numbskull. The Supreme Court could change anything, but is highly unlikely to do so based on the lack of dispute over a long period of time.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

A lot of things are beyond you.

Like the kind of profound dishonesty you engage in.

For example?

 

[thanatos144]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

Comrade Starkiev:

Explain , clearly and succinctly, you can use your native Russky , if you must,

HOW IS IT THAT MIKHAIL GORBACHEV ALLOWED THE REPUBLICS TO DECLARE THEIR INDEPENDENCE WITHOUT WIPING OUT 650,000 SOVIET CITIZENS?

I THOUGHT THE RUSSKIES WERE THE BARBARIC ONES?


.

Russia didn't have the military strength to hold them. Are you saying we don't ether?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

The point is that you admit the Court can rule incorrectly. Therefore Texas v. White doesn't support your case.

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

You must use all of your fingers and toes to count. Unless you are a medical miracle 146 yrs is what we are talking about. You should have tried sooner.

So how would I contest a law 146 years ago?

You really are an incredible dumbass.

You don't get it numbskull. The Supreme Court could change anything, but is highly unlikely to do so based on the lack of dispute over a long period of time.

You don't get it. The Supreme Court's decisions may have the force of law, but they seldom have any connection with objective reality. The justices are hand picked political hacks. They make the decisions they were chosen to make.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

Comrade Starkiev:

Explain , clearly and succinctly, you can use your native Russky , if you must,

HOW IS IT THAT MIKHAIL GORBACHEV ALLOWED THE REPUBLICS TO DECLARE THEIR INDEPENDENCE WITHOUT WIPING OUT 650,000 SOVIET CITIZENS?

I THOUGHT THE RUSSKIES WERE THE BARBARIC ONES?


.

Russia didn't have the military strength to hold them. Are you saying we don't ether?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So if you can murder enough people, then you are morally correct to do so?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

No answer ehh ?

Are you entirely unaware that indigenous Americans have frequently been granted sovereignty?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Right!!

Let the south set up there very own country. Look at their budgets and there constant hand out to the federal government.

Leave for one generation.

Get ready for a day when a Mexican Politician complains about illiterate unskilled immigrants coming into their country.

The best thing the south can do is pucker up those lips and kiss the ass of the north. Not only did they hand you out a whipping, they also pick up the check for your inbred assholes...

View attachment 45155

Dumbass, your map doesn't prove either side is using more food stamps. In fact there are more red states in the lowest bracket, and the Southern States? Yeah, that's where all the blacks live who vote for you fucks to lift them out of poverty.

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg Business

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- As the U.S. economy recovers from the worst recession since the Great Depression, the explosive growth of food stamps remains a lingering legacy. And now the program comes with an irony, as the Republicans seeking to cut it also represent vast numbers of recipients.


Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Nope. You should have contested in sooner than 146 yrs.

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

You must use all of your fingers and toes to count. Unless you are a medical miracle 146 yrs is what we are talking about. You should have tried sooner.

So how would I contest a law 146 years ago?

You really are an incredible dumbass.

You don't get it numbskull. The Supreme Court could change anything, but is highly unlikely to do so based on the lack of dispute over a long period of time.

You don't get it. The Supreme Court's decisions may have the force of law, but they seldom have any connection with objective reality. The justices are hand picked political hacks. They make the decisions they were chosen to make.

What does the Constitution say about the role of the Supreme Court?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Why would anyone argue about the right of secession of states that had so clearly violated the rights of blacks and only had their treasonous hissy fit because they feared the end of slavery?

It would be like arguing if Germany had the legal right to invade Poland it would have been ok.

Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voters nursing the Mother of All ButtHurts......

 

[Kondor3]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

The Brits could have said the same thing about us in 1776, yes?

A 'legal right' to secede exists if the victor in such a struggle says it exists, yes?

After all, it's how we broke away from England.

 

[BreezeWood]

Maybe, but citizens of a state should be allowed to try regardless.

.
Americans are citizens of all 50 states, those within one state have no right to declare that state as exclusively their own.

.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean like before I was born? The Lincoln cult is swirling down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

You must use all of your fingers and toes to count. Unless you are a medical miracle 146 yrs is what we are talking about. You should have tried sooner.

So how would I contest a law 146 years ago?

You really are an incredible dumbass.

You don't get it numbskull. The Supreme Court could change anything, but is highly unlikely to do so based on the lack of dispute over a long period of time.

You don't get it. The Supreme Court's decisions may have the force of law, but they seldom have any connection with objective reality. The justices are hand picked political hacks. They make the decisions they were chosen to make.

What does the Constitution say about the role of the Supreme Court?

It doesn't say the Court is infallible nor does it say the court can make law.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, but citizens of a state should be allowed to try regardless.

.
Americans are citizens of all 50 states, those within one state have no right to declare that state as exclusively their own.

.

No, actually Americans are not citizens of all 50 states. If you are not a resident of Florida, you can't pay instate tuition at a Florida college or university.

Do you Lincoln cult turds ever post anything that is actually correct?