Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[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?

.

brat: 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.

try and understand the difference between resident and Citizen of the United States, it is on your passport ... the misunderstanding is a profound error in your judgement.

.

Are you denying the fact that if you don't live in Florida you don't have the right to pay in state tuition rates?

.

brat: Are you denying the fact that if you don't live in Florida you don't have the right to pay in state tuition rates?

... dodge city


don't live - is not the same as being a Citizen of the United States, just look at your passport ....

.

You're the one who's dodging, dumbass.

 

[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?

.

brat: 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.

try and understand the difference between resident and Citizen of the United States, it is on your passport ... the misunderstanding is a profound error in your judgement.

.

Are you denying the fact that if you don't live in Florida you don't have the right to pay in state tuition rates?

.

brat: Are you denying the fact that if you don't live in Florida you don't have the right to pay in state tuition rates?

... dodge city


don't live - is not the same as being a Citizen of the United States, just look at your passport ....

.

My passport says I'm a citizen of the United States. That's all it says.

 

[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.

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.

We rebelled from England. We didn't lie about our intentions like the democrats of the south did

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Neither openness nor secrecy nor deceit have any bearing whatsoever upon the Legality of the thing.

Like the anjinsan said rebellions are legal if you win.... the democrats of the south lost

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

 

[thanatos144]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

 

[thanatos144]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

No they weren't because they were not trying to conserve anything butvtgey were like you trying to take liberties with others freedoms .

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.

Folks do not know that?

Oh sure.. LIke we care....Fuck 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.

Yup, tell that to the Muslim and religious crazies they have been arresting.

You don't get to threaten folks with impunity.

What the fuck are you yammering about?
Now here is a bucketful of stupid....Comparing the communications of Islamic terrorists to those posting on a political message board. Who are "folks"?

 

[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.

Plessy vs. Ferguson wasn't disputed for 70 years, longer than the time since Brown v Board of Education.

You're obviously full of shit. Court decisions are disputed if the Court wants to dispute them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

 

[thanatos144]

the conservative slave owners and pedlars of the South lost.

Democrat slave owners dick head not conservative.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

And why would you state that?.....

Because democrats like him must distance themselves from the truth about themselves

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[nuhuh]

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.

Plessy vs. Ferguson wasn't disputed for 70 years, longer than the time since Brown v Board of Education.

You're obviously full of shit. Court decisions are disputed if the Court wants to dispute them.

How does that conflict with what I wrote?

 

[Debra K]

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.

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 Lincoln cult believes that if you join a club the other members have the right to kill you if you try to quit.

This is argument is childish.

 

[Debra K]

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.

Again, bripat ... childish.

This is purely an academic discussion. Even if you plug your ears and scream "I can't hear you!", all of your childish arguments in favor of succession won't do the rebels any good at this point in time. A civil war was fought and the rebels lost. All the best arguments or post-hoc justifications for succession were already made by Alexander Stephens and his ilk. Bripat, you're no Alexander Stephens.* If anyone interested in the subject desires to learn more and cherishes eloquent and persuasive argument, they should peruse Stephens' two volumes on the subject.

* I borrowed that phraseology from a famous line in a debate ... and for 100 points ... name that debate ...

 

[bripat9643]

What was the law PRIOR to the Confederacy that expressly forbid any state to secede ?

Wrong question. Was there ever a law that permitted secession is the correct question.

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 Lincoln cult believes that if you join a club the other members have the right to kill you if you try to quit.

This is argument is childish.

Nevertheless plenty of your fellow cult members have argued exactly that.

 

[Debra K]

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.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

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

Whoops!

We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well the supreme Court also said a man can be property

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Well there is no point in repeating dark points in our nation's history either.

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

Whoops!

We all know that our courts are indeed fallible and sometimes make errors. On the other hand, you hold out your arguments as infallible, i.e., irrefutable. You make no room for error on your part. That is hubris.

If I make an error, then show it. So far you have been singularly ineffective. The court isn't just fallible. It's nothing but a gang of political whores.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This fantasy about "legal secession " is cowardly. You want out, then pick up a gun and take your chances. If you win, you'll be a hero. Lose and you're scum.

You either have the courage of your convictions or you don't.

THAT is how history is written.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

.

Do you know what "state" means?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

We rebelled from England. We didn't lie about our intentions like the democrats of the south did

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Neither openness nor secrecy nor deceit have any bearing whatsoever upon the Legality of the thing.

Like the anjinsan said rebellions are legal if you win.... the democrats of the south lost

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Might makes right? I don't remember being taught that in my catechesis.