Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[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?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

Sure it can. As long as you haven't been deprived of your property, you have not been wronged and have no say in what jurisdiction it is. Cities annex sections of county or even other cities all the time. Your house can be in one city, and then another city next week if your section gets annexed. You have no say in this whatsoever.

Are you insane? As a US citizen I have property rights protected by the full force of the federal government.

I am also as a citizen entitled to the military protection of the US government.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.

Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war- but certainly did in this case- when the South started firing on American troops.

Was it necessary for the United States to respond to the unprovoked attack on American troops?

Hell we declared war on Spain for the mere suspicion that Spain had attacked American sailors.

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. If Texas secedes, it can take all 11 military bases, the bulk of the US Armed Forces because it no longer belongs to the United States. It can order U.S. troops to leave and take action if they do not. That's what secession means...EVERYTHING within the seceding territory belongs to the new provincial government.

 

[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?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

Sure it can. As long as you haven't been deprived of your property, you have not been wronged and have no say in what jurisdiction it is. Cities annex sections of county or even other cities all the time. Your house can be in one city, and then another city next week if your section gets annexed. You have no say in this whatsoever.

Are you insane? As a US citizen I have property rights protected by the full force of the federal government.

I am also as a citizen entitled to the military protection of the US government.

Good. I want you to file a complaint to the Bureau of Land Management when your property is annexed by another city. You're an idiot if you think you have a say in what jurisdiction your property lies in.

 

[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?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.

Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war- but certainly did in this case- when the South started firing on American troops.

Was it necessary for the United States to respond to the unprovoked attack on American troops?

Hell we declared war on Spain for the mere suspicion that Spain had attacked American sailors.

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. If Texas secedes, it can take all 11 military bases, the bulk of the US Armed Forces because it no longer belongs to the United States. It can order U.S. troops to leave and take action if they do not. That's what secession means...EVERYTHING within the seceding territory belongs to the new provincial government.

The President could simply order the troops on those bases to secure and hold them, and then send reinforcements to assure the success of that.

 

[Faun]

 

[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?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

Sure it can. As long as you haven't been deprived of your property, you have not been wronged and have no say in what jurisdiction it is. Cities annex sections of county or even other cities all the time. Your house can be in one city, and then another city next week if your section gets annexed. You have no say in this whatsoever.

Are you insane? As a US citizen I have property rights protected by the full force of the federal government.

I am also as a citizen entitled to the military protection of the US government.

Good. I want you to file a complaint to the Bureau of Land Management when your property is annexed by another city. You're an idiot if you think you have a say in what jurisdiction your property lies in.

My property would be being annexed by a foreign government.

 

[bodecea]

Good...when will Texas be seceding? Soon, I hope.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

I'm in the United States. New York cannot declare my property to be part of a foreign country any more than Mexico can annex San Diego.

Sure it can. As long as you haven't been deprived of your property, you have not been wronged and have no say in what jurisdiction it is. Cities annex sections of county or even other cities all the time. Your house can be in one city, and then another city next week if your section gets annexed. You have no say in this whatsoever.

Are you insane? As a US citizen I have property rights protected by the full force of the federal government.

I am also as a citizen entitled to the military protection of the US government.

Good. I want you to file a complaint to the Bureau of Land Management when your property is annexed by another city. You're an idiot if you think you have a say in what jurisdiction your property lies in.

My property would be being annexed by a foreign government.

If it did, you would have no say over it. You think the federal government would give 2 shits about your property, you self focused ninny? Either they would attempt to take the territory back by force or they wouldn't. Either way, it would not be about you....hard as it is for you to imagine. Blimey you are a narcissist!

 

[bripat9643]

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?

U.S. citizens have no gun rights in Mexico, so why do you think they would have gun rights in a state that seceded? If they want to exercise their gun rights, all they have to do is go back to the United States.

But in fact the opposite would happen and likely every able body man in a seceding state would be REQUIRED to have a gun. NYcarbineer's proposal is stupid beyond belief.

You want an example you can relate to better? What if a state proclaims it's seceded and then proceeds to outlaw the practice of Islam?

If you don't like it, move. You have no First Amendment rights in a foreign country.

The first thing I would do as president if a state seceded would be to freeze all Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and federal pension payments, including military pensions, for residents of that state.

Then I would send in troops to occupy and secure all federal lands.

That would end the nonsense in a hurry.

You mean you would invade. Stalin and Hitler would be so proud of you.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia..

Really?

They had 'no idea'? what would happen when they decided to fire on American troops?

Wow- you are making them out to be even stupider than I thought they were.

A number of scenarios were possible. For all the knew, Lincoln was all bluster and empty threats and might just slink away and do nothing. Your believe that what happened was the only plausible outcome is the result of certainty aided by 20/20 hindsight.

Like I said- you portray them as even stupider than I thought.

I do believe though that both sides severely underestimated the other side- and both sides believed that they would have quick and easy victory.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

The subject is secession, which is an internalized form of revolution.

Revolutions are almost always violent, and, if the insurrectionists win through force, then they are considered 'right' (legal), yes?

Is the phrase 'might makes right' - in the context of secession and/or revolution - always and without fail, a truism?

Nope.

Is the phrase 'might makes right' nearly always a truism?

Yep.

Close enough for Gubmint work.

Bullshit. Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war. When Herr Lincoln Über Alles drew up an invasion army of 75,000 troops and steered them on a clear invasion course, there can be no disputing that he started a war that wasn't necessary and caused the deaths of 600,000 men. He absolutely deserved to be shot in the head by the families of the people he murdered.

Secession does not necessarily need to lead to war- but certainly did in this case- when the South started firing on American troops.

Was it necessary for the United States to respond to the unprovoked attack on American troops?

Hell we declared war on Spain for the mere suspicion that Spain had attacked American sailors.

Bullshit. Those troops were ordered to leave a military installation that no longer belonged to the United States and they refused to do so. If Texas secedes, it can take all 11 military bases, the bulk of the US Armed Forces because it no longer belongs to the United States. It can order U.S. troops to leave and take action if they do not. That's what secession means...EVERYTHING within the seceding territory belongs to the new provincial government.

The President could simply order the troops on those bases to secure and hold them, and then send reinforcements to assure the success of that.

The President could order the moon, it doesn't mean he would get it....especially if it's a despicable POS like Obama. The Texas National Guard, Texas residents, and hell....half the troops that just love Texas would gladly join the cause. Secession is a popular movement, meaning that lots of people are pissed off and unwilling to cooperate with tyrants any further.

I truly hope you personally try to stop them. I'd like to see that on youtube.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Secession isn't a rebellion or an insurrection. It's a legislative process. The rebels had no idea what would happen when they seceded until Lincoln invaded Virginia..

Really?

They had 'no idea'? what would happen when they decided to fire on American troops?

Wow- you are making them out to be even stupider than I thought they were.

A number of scenarios were possible. For all the knew, Lincoln was all bluster and empty threats and might just slink away and do nothing. Your believe that what happened was the only plausible outcome is the result of certainty aided by 20/20 hindsight.

Like I said- you portray them as even stupider than I thought.

They were 1000 times smarter than you. You're an obvious moron. Being queer must cause brain damage.

 

[Kondor3]

...Bullshit...

Uhhhhh... yeah... whatever you say, Sport.

 

[amrchaos]

Several Question:

1.What exactly is the US Constitution?
2.Before the Constitution, did we not have Articles of the Confederacy?
3.Why were the Article of Confederacy replaced by the Constitution?

I think the answer about whether or not secession is legal are found in the answers to the above and the federalist papers.

 

[Contumacious]

Several Question:

1.What exactly is the US Constitution?
2.Before the Constitution, did we not have Articles of the Confederacy?
3.Why were the Article of Confederacy replaced by the Constitution?

I think the answer about whether or not secession is legal are found in the answers to the above and the federalist papers.

The Founding Fathers did not trust the federal government. They wanted to make sure that our rights to life, liberty, property and to pursue happiness were UNalienable - not subject to bureaucratic discretion.-specificlly, in order to prevent fascism.

Unfortunately, , no constitution is safe if the individuals responsible for protecting the same are state supremacists scumbags.


.

 

[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

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

If you are going to rebel expect a fight and since the democrats of the south started hostilities your statement is asinine

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[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

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.

Southern conservatives wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, which was in large part the foundation of their wealth and economic growth. They purported not to agree with this statement in our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They argued that black people were an inferior race intended by the Creator to be enslaved by white people--a belief that coincided happily with their economic interests.

Democrats are still like That

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Debra K]

Good...when will Texas be seceding? Soon, I hope.

Let's start building the wall now ... don't want those Texans slipping across the border ...