Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The Supreme Court "ruling" on this matters is a canard.

It is much more fundamental.

You don't even know what canard means.

"an unfounded rumor or story" does not describe Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).
"the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jim Crow is a term applied to laws against blacks two to three decades after the Civil War as negrophobia swept America.

The Fugitive Slave Law was opposed by some northern states, not to keep slaves out of their jurisdictions but rather to not have to be forced to assist the federal authorities in returning them to their owners.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.
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.

And your state cannot secede and arbitrarily revoke any or all of your rights and privileges as a US citizen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

They are US citizens (if applicable) no matter which state they are in. They hold certain rights, protections, and privileges as US citizens;

secession would unlawfully revoke, abolish, or otherwise end much if not all of those rights, etc.

That in and of itself makes secession illegal.

 

[there4eyeM]

Very good point and argument.

 

[Debra K]

the slave owners, whether dem or whig, were conservatives

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

I think he said that because he studied history. He is correct. Likewise, the progressives at that time in history congregated under the "Republican" party label.

Yes, I remember how "progressive" they were when Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed the original Jim Crow laws that prohibited runaway slaves from squatting, working, owning land, or doing anything else except just passing through.

I'm glad you identify with that tradition. I agree they were just like you.

Why did the southern states want to secede from the Union? Could it be the anti-slave sentiment in the northern states? Why don't you do some research about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which infuriated many northern citizens because they didn't want to enforce slavery. The opposition of northern people ("progressives") to the Act was cited by southern states as a cause for secession.

The fugitive slave act was forced on Northerners by Northerners, or did you not know that one of the driving issues of the time was Northern states' clout in Congress ramrodding legislation through at the expense of the minority?

Your so blind to Northern bigotry that you have no clue how strong sentiments were to keep runaway slaves out of the North. This is why I had to educate your ignorant ass about the pre war Jim Crow laws in several Northern states.

You'll always sound like a braying ass as long as you maintain the illusion that the North were the "good guys" in all of this.

I have never made the argument that there were no bigots living in the north. There probably were. But most northern people opposed slavery and did not want it spread throughout the territories. They also wanted to avoid a civil war and compromises were made. I feel like I'm talking to a five-year-old child.

You can't educate me because you haven't educated yourself. What states had the most political clout in Congress during the early to mid-19th Century? What party had control of the 31st U.S. Congress? Who was the president in 1850, where did he hail from, and what were his political leanings? You obviously haven't studied American history that led up to the Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. You are uninformed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I was watching a youtube piece on "Sanctuary Cities" and it occured to me that these cities are essentially practicing a form of nullification.

Is that correct ?

 

[Skylar]

I was watching a youtube piece on "Sanctuary Cities" and it occured to me that these cities are essentially practicing a form of nullification.

Is that correct ?

Nullification isn't succession. Or even remotely close to it. The Sanctuary cities aren't cooperating with the Feds on the enforcement of certain federal laws. The Feds can still enforce federal laws if they'd like. As the feds still have jurisdiction over the sanctuary cities.

 

[g5000]

What? You guys are still here?!?

Look, I proved Madison and Jefferson both said nullification and secession were unconstitutional. And it just doesn't get more "expert opinion" than that, folks.

You secession tards have been stomped. By the guys who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Sorry to make your asses hurt.

Why is this topic still going?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What? You guys are still here?!?

Look, I proved Madison and Jefferson both said nullification and secession were unconstitutional. And it just doesn't get more "expert opinion" than that, folks.

You secession tards have been stomped. By the guys who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Sorry to make your asses hurt.

Why is this topic still going?

Jefferson didn't write the Constitution.....just to be clear.

I agree that secession is a bit of meaningless topic. It's not happpening by force or without full cooperation on the part of all involved.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I was watching a youtube piece on "Sanctuary Cities" and it occured to me that these cities are essentially practicing a form of nullification.

Is that correct ?

Nullification isn't succession. Or even remotely close to it. The Sanctuary cities aren't cooperating with the Feds on the enforcement of certain federal laws. The Feds can still enforce federal laws if they'd like. As the feds still have jurisdiction over the sanctuary cities.

You are correct. It isn't.

But they are related in that they both are a response to laws people don't like. In one case it is extreme.

I'll put that question on a separate thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if a state proclaimed itself to have seceded, and then proceeded to ban something like handgun ownership?

You think the gun rights people in that state wouldn't try to invoke a claim of status as US citizens protected by the 2nd amendment?

 

[bendog]

James Madison: "It crushes 'nullification' and must hasten the abandonment of 'Secession.'"

Doesn't get more clear than that. Madison neither believed nullification nor secession were legal.

And as you said, gipper, "James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution."

Irrefutable.

You mean the obscene child pooped in his diaper again?

 

[g5000]

What? You guys are still here?!?

Look, I proved Madison and Jefferson both said nullification and secession were unconstitutional. And it just doesn't get more "expert opinion" than that, folks.

You secession tards have been stomped. By the guys who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.

Sorry to make your asses hurt.

Why is this topic still going?

Jefferson didn't write the Constitution.....just to be clear.

Jefferson, Adams, and Madison wrote the bulk of it. Jefferson and Adams were out of the country during the Convention, that does not mean they didn't have significant authorship. It only means their signatures are not on it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

And your state cannot secede and arbitrarily revoke any or all of your rights and privileges as a US citizen.

If my state seceded, none of my rights and priveleges as a U.S. citizen would be revoked. I would simply have to go to the United States to exercise them.

I've already dealt with this argument numerous times, and you never respond to my answer. That's because you know it's a bogus argument.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

.
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.

And your state cannot secede and arbitrarily revoke any or all of your rights and privileges as a US citizen.

If my state seceded, none of my rights and priveleges as a U.S. citizen would be revoked. I would simply have to go to the United States to exercise them.

I've already dealt with this argument numerous times, and you never respond to my answer. That's because you know it's a bogus argument.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

No state can kick you out without cause.

My property is on US soil. If for example the state requires me to give up my property and leave in order to retain the protections of my citizenship, I have legitimate grievances enforceable by the US government.

 

[Syriusly]

I think the OP author keeps demonstrating my point over and over

Anyone who declares that his opinion is 'irrefutable' in his opening statement- is just saying he will not listen to any other opinions.

 

[bendog]

I think the OP author keeps demonstrating my point over and over

Anyone who declares that his opinion is 'irrefutable' in his opening statement- is just saying he will not listen to any other opinions.

Literally, I think what happened was he never learned before of previous attempts at state nullification, or the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and then upon stumbling onto this knowledge, he thought he had an original thought.

 

[Skylar]

.
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.

And your state cannot secede and arbitrarily revoke any or all of your rights and privileges as a US citizen.

If my state seceded, none of my rights and priveleges as a U.S. citizen would be revoked. I would simply have to go to the United States to exercise them.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating my rights. You'd be removing that protection from me.

Additionally, the decision to secede isn't unilateral. As the State and Federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over the territory. Upon joining the union a state is no longer a lone sovereign. But a concurrent sovereign with the federal government. Any territorial decisions would have to be made by both sovereigns.

Not merely one or the other.

The only exception to this would be territorial disputes between states. In which case the federal government would arbitrate.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You argue that a right to secede exists, others argue that it doesn't exist. There are logical arguments on both sides. I find Stephens' arguments to be persuasive. But there is no question that the southern states did, in fact, attempt to secede from the Union. The Constitution granted the federal government the power to put down insurrections and rebellions and the federal government utilized that power. The rebels knew their actions would be answered with force. If the rebels had not lost on the battlefields, then their secession would have been complete.

Similarly, the Colonies rebelled against England. If the Colonies had not prevailed on the battlefields, then the rebellion would have failed and we might still be under English rule today.

We can't rewrite history. The southern state rebels lost--that was 150 years ago. The Civil War settled the dispute.

Your unsupported conclusion that the Supreme Court is "nothing but a gang of political whores" doesn't change history.

The 'right to secede' argument is an interesting intellectual exercise. But within the frame of a 'legal argument', its already been settled. The USSC already ruled on this issue and found that no such power existed. As the USSC is the body tasked with adjudicating issues that arise under the constitution, their ruling is legally authoritative.

We can argue if they were right or wrong. But the fact remains that is authoritative. And as such has already resolved the legal issues involved. Legally, no such right to secede exists.

Brit can ignore the USSC ruling. But his dismissal has no relevance to the authority of their ruling or resolution of the issue. Its settled caselaw.

"Legally authoritative?" Horseshit. Their decision has the force of law. That's all. No one is disputing that claim. What is under discussion here is whether their decision has any basis in reality. It doesn't. It's nothing more than a rubber stamp on Lincoln's war mongering by a gang of hacks hand picked by Lincoln to apply it.

Somehow you believe the Supreme Court renders actual justice. That's a delusion. The SC is an arm of the government resolving disputes between the government and other parties. The idea that it would ever rule against itself is absurd, and those who place some kind of faith in the idea that it would ever do so are fools.