Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[g5000]

Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

O hai! U R wrong. Sry to gives you a sad.

^^^What he said.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Please review the definitions of conservative and progressive.

For a very long time in our history, those who labeled themselves as "conservative" placed themselves under the umbrella of the "Democratic" party.

That's total horseshit. People like you labeled them as "conservative," but no such label existed in the 19th Century until the so-called "progressive" movement began. Then the term "conservative" was used to distinguish between the so-called "progressives" and intelligent people who had other views.

Sleazy turds like you label those who supported slaver as "conservatives" simply so you can smear conservatives. It's a despicable propaganda technique with no basis in fact.

Now go fuck yourself

 

[bripat9643]

The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.

A "perpetual union" that lasted 13 years.

Wrong, as usual; you're still in it.

Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?

 

[bripat9643]

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?.....

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.

There were no "progressives" before he civil war. You're using terms that simply aren't applicable so you can smear conservatives.

Utterly despicable, really.

 

[there4eyeM]

The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.

A "perpetual union" that lasted 13 years.

Wrong, as usual; you're still in it.

Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?

The more perfect Perpetual Union established therein certainly is.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

THE CARD CARRYING FASCIST AND STATE SUPREMACIST STATES THAT THE RIGHT TO SECEDE WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OR THE TENTH AMENDMENT -

WELL, YOU COULD HAVE KNOCKED ME OVER WITH A FEATHER..


IT NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME HOW THESE STUPID FUCKS REACH THOSE "CONCLUSIONS"

THE "MEAN" OLD SOVIET UNION PEACEFULLY ALLOWED THE BREAKAWAY REPUBLICS TO INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY CHOOSE THEIR DESTINY.


BUT IN GOOD OL' USA - THE HOME OF THE "FREE" - "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" DOES NOT ALLOW SECESSIONS AND 650,000 AMERICANS WERE SLAUGHTERED IN THE PROCESS - AND A MONUMENT WAS CREATED IN DC FOR THE PERP.

FUCKING AMAZING.

.


.

 

[BluesLegend]

The liberal slave masters don't want to allow anyone off their plantations.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Why do you people continually draw hypotheticals from your own deluded fantasies? You conjure dragons to slay that don't even exist. We get that you hate the states and love the federal government and think the founders were idiots not to just create one central government and do away with the silliness of creating sovereign states, but the conflict you dream up cannot and does not ever happen.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Idiot argument. Any state that secedes wants ALL of its citizens to be armed to the teeth expecting a reprisal by the feds.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Another post demonstrating that what the OP meant by 'Irrefutable' is simply that he considers his opinion to be right and will ignore everything else.

 

[Syriusly]

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?.....

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.

There were no "progressives" before he civil war. You're using terms that simply aren't applicable so you can smear conservatives.

Utterly despicable, really.

Definition
b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

The Republicans were progressives- they believed in using government action for 'social improvement' by preventing the expansion of slavery outside of the existing slave states.

Perhaps radicals would be more appropriate- since a large segment of Republicans were abolitionists who advocated more direct and radical changes in government policy forcing the end of the institution of slavery.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Incorrect. In fact states such as New York and Virginia expressly established their right to secede before ratifying the Constitution. The very fact that the states created the Constitution and the states can come together and change or even dissolve it should prove conclusively to anyone but a raging moron (you) that in the states lies the original power, inviolable, irrevocable, and absolute. If 38 states wanted to do away with the all too ubiquitous 14th Amendment, the unbridled Supreme Court, or both, they could do that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Another post demonstrating that what the OP meant by 'Irrefutable' is simply that he considers his opinion to be right and will ignore everything else.

Some arguments are irrefutable. You can disagree with them all you like but you can't break the argument.

 

[mikegriffith1]

After the war even Ulysses S. Grant admitted that the founding fathers would have allowed the Southern states to leave in peace rather than see a war between brothers.

And, yes, it's a very good point to note that Congress rushed to pass anti-secession amendments after secession started, which of course begs the question: Why would such amendments be needed if there were anything even resembling a prohibition against secession in the Constitution?

Another irrefutable fact is that the framers never intended the Union to be held together by force. The use of force to maintain the Union was, naturally, discussed, and was flatly rejected. In fact, the founders even forbade the federal government from sending federal troops into a state without the state government's permission.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

 

[boilermaker55]

So says the queen of ad hominems LOL

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.”

.
Professor H Newcomb Morse - - just another states rights charlatan ...


those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.

.

Nothing but slander and ad hominems. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the good professor, do you have anything to counter his arguments?

I didn't think so.

You're a typical bootlicking Lincoln cult member.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So.....we're like the Soviet Union, kept by force, lethal force at that.

After you murder your children for running away from home, please please please use that defense.

Absolutely correct. Lincoln converted us from a voluntary union of free states into an empire of subjects.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Another post demonstrating that what the OP meant by 'Irrefutable' is simply that he considers his opinion to be right and will ignore everything else.

Some arguments are irrefutable. You can disagree with them all you like but you can't break the argument.

 

[bripat9643]

So says the queen of ad hominems LOL

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.”

.
Professor H Newcomb Morse - - just another states rights charlatan ...


those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.

.

Nothing but slander and ad hominems. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the good professor, do you have anything to counter his arguments?

I didn't think so.

You're a typical bootlicking Lincoln cult member.

I deliver logic and facts along with my accurate appraisals of my opponents.

 

[bripat9643]

The law was not against secession, the law was for a Perpetual Union.
This is simple.

A "perpetual union" that lasted 13 years.

Wrong, as usual; you're still in it.

Nope. We are not in the union formed by the Articles of Confederation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So says the queen of ad hominems LOL

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.”

.
Professor H Newcomb Morse - - just another states rights charlatan ...


those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.

.

Nothing but slander and ad hominems. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the good professor, do you have anything to counter his arguments?

I didn't think so.

You're a typical bootlicking Lincoln cult member.

I deliver logic and facts along with my accurate appraisals of my opponents.

No, you deliver ignorance and stupidity devoid of facts and merit.