Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[thanatos144]

Secession is at its core a declaration of war. It is rebellion and only retards like bri think otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

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?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

How are you loyal to two countries?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bombur]

47 pages of arguing about the legality of an action the South never planned to make subject to the law of the land.

The Southern apologists are delusional and ridiculous.

OK please tell us how the states that left used the legal process for determining the legality of their actions to determine if they were allowed to leave or not. Legally speaking.

Or did they just gather their guns and start a war?

Thanks for demonstrating my point on being delusional though.

The act of secession will always be considered illegal to the country being seceded from. England considered the declaration of independence illegal and went to war over it, and lost. The north considered the confederacy to be illegal and went to war over it, and won.
The states of the USSR that left Russia "lllegally" divided the USSR. But there was no war, it just broke up into new nations.

the question is not legality, its whether there would be a war and who would win

So we can all agree that the premise of the thread is ridiculous as it doesn't pertain to reality at all.

 

[Skylar]

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?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

The part where NY can unilaterally make territorial decisions for the US. As the federal government has concurrent jurisdiction on the same territory. Both sovereigns would have to agree for any such territorial decision to occur.

 

[Skylar]

47 pages of arguing about the legality of an action the South never planned to make subject to the law of the land.

The Southern apologists are delusional and ridiculous.

OK please tell us how the states that left used the legal process for determining the legality of their actions to determine if they were allowed to leave or not. Legally speaking.

Or did they just gather their guns and start a war?

Thanks for demonstrating my point on being delusional though.

The act of secession will always be considered illegal to the country being seceded from. England considered the declaration of independence illegal and went to war over it, and lost. The north considered the confederacy to be illegal and went to war over it, and won.
The states of the USSR that left Russia "lllegally" divided the USSR. But there was no war, it just broke up into new nations.

the question is not legality, its whether there would be a war and who would win

So we can all agree that the premise of the thread is ridiculous as it doesn't pertain to reality at all.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

.

No they committed treason and armed rebellion. Since you're comparing those illegal acts to what secession would be today,

you have successfully refuted the OP's 'irrefutable' argument that secession is legal.

Congratulations.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

The part where NY can unilaterally make territorial decisions for the US. As the federal government has concurrent jurisdiction on the same territory. Both sovereigns would have to agree for any such territorial decision to occur.

No, not really. Did you know New York threatened secession years before any Southern state?

 

[there4eyeM]

The thirteen colonies and England were not a union declared to be perpetual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

As a US citizen I have the right to the protections afforded by the federal military, federal law enforcement, and the federal courts. What seceding state is going to allow that to continue?

As a US citizen I am protected by all federal laws related to the workplace. Is the new country of NY going to honor all of that? Are they going to require for example all businesses in the new country to continue to make payroll tax contributions to my SS and Medicare at my place of employment?

 

[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.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

That cannot be done to me legally by the state of NY. That is a gross violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, for starters.

 

[Bombur]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

 

[thanatos144]

[


Did the 13 colonies get permission from King George to leave England and form a new country? No. Did all of the citizens of the colonies support leaving England? No.

.

No they committed treason and armed rebellion. Since you're comparing those illegal acts to what secession would be today,

you have successfully refuted the OP's 'irrefutable' argument that secession is legal.

Congratulations.

It is only treason since they lost

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

As a US citizen I have the right to the protections afforded by the federal military, federal law enforcement, and the federal courts. What seceding state is going to allow that to continue?

As a US citizen I am protected by all federal laws related to the workplace. Is the new country of NY going to honor all of that? Are they going to require for example all businesses in the new country to continue to make payroll tax contributions to my SS and Medicare at my place of employment?

Get it through your thick skull, if the state you reside in secedes, the United States will attempt to repatriate it by force or not and for its own reasons. Nobody gives a shit about you, your property, or the rights you dream you have, you narcissist loon. If you don't want to live in that state anymore then you can sell your property and move. Nobody's going to war for you, Helena of Troy.

 

[Redfish]

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.

If a majority of the citizens of New York, or any state, voted to secede from the US, you would have a choice--stay in that state or move. If you chose to move, you would forfeit your property.

That cannot be done to me legally by the state of NY. That is a gross violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, for starters.

Yes, technically secession would be illegal. So what? That illegality would not matter unless the federal govt decided to pursue it militarily.

As to SS, medicare, and other entitlements, the new nation would have to be able to replace those benefits for its citizens.

This is all theoretical and fun to talk about, but the chances of it happening are slim and none.

 

[thanatos144]

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?

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

As a US citizen I have the right to the protections afforded by the federal military, federal law enforcement, and the federal courts. What seceding state is going to allow that to continue?

As a US citizen I am protected by all federal laws related to the workplace. Is the new country of NY going to honor all of that? Are they going to require for example all businesses in the new country to continue to make payroll tax contributions to my SS and Medicare at my place of employment?

Get it through your thick skull, if the state you reside in secedes, the United States will attempt to repatriate it by force or not and for its own reasons. Nobody gives a shit about you, your property, or the rights you dream you have, you narcissist loon. If you don't want to live in that state anymore then you can sell your property and move. Nobody's going to war for you, Helena of Troy.

So might is right? Because secession is a declaration of war

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Redfish]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

 

[Bombur]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

Try using logic next time please. What you said is not in contradiction to what I said. I can understand why it may seem that way to an emotional thinker but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Different states can be motivated by different things. It is perfectly possible for only one slave state to rebel. It is possible that all of the slave states rebel for different reasons.

The problem is that if you actually look at history there were a lot of reasons for rebellion but the most important reason and the most common reason related directly to the fears the south had about the perpetual sustainability of the institution of slavery within the Union.

Try reading more than just a little history that is slanted to your broken world view before your next foolish rant.

 

[thanatos144]

The South mostly left the union because of Lincoln pointing out the glaringly obvious truth that slavery went against the rights of man laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The south doesn't have the moral high ground the colonies did with regards to rights because you know slavery. They also didn't try and address the problem through legal means like the colonies did.

The actions of the south were deplorable and almost ruined this great nation. They certainly set us back a long way.

there were slaves in northern states as well and only about 2% of southernors were slave owners. Try reading a little history before your next foolish rant.

You do know that is a stupid argument. Because there were slaves in the north does not excuse slavery nor does it change the fact that a war was started because Lincoln a known anti slavery candidate won the presidential race. this is always how democrats act. They don't get thier way they get underhanded and more people suffer

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

that would be up to the citizens of that new country. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

As a US citizen I have the right to the protections afforded by the federal military, federal law enforcement, and the federal courts. What seceding state is going to allow that to continue?

As a US citizen I am protected by all federal laws related to the workplace. Is the new country of NY going to honor all of that? Are they going to require for example all businesses in the new country to continue to make payroll tax contributions to my SS and Medicare at my place of employment?

Get it through your thick skull, if the state you reside in secedes, the United States will attempt to repatriate it by force or not and for its own reasons. Nobody gives a shit about you, your property, or the rights you dream you have, you narcissist loon. If you don't want to live in that state anymore then you can sell your property and move. Nobody's going to war for you, Helena of Troy.

So might is right? Because secession is a declaration of war

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Is that what I said?

No it isn't, is it?

 

[thanatos144]

There is no new country. I'm a US citizen. The state of NY cannot legally revoke my US citizenship nor anything that goes with it.

Nobody's claiming it can. If you chose to stay in New York, you would have dual citizenship. Why is this so hard to understand?

As a US citizen I have the right to the protections afforded by the federal military, federal law enforcement, and the federal courts. What seceding state is going to allow that to continue?

As a US citizen I am protected by all federal laws related to the workplace. Is the new country of NY going to honor all of that? Are they going to require for example all businesses in the new country to continue to make payroll tax contributions to my SS and Medicare at my place of employment?

Get it through your thick skull, if the state you reside in secedes, the United States will attempt to repatriate it by force or not and for its own reasons. Nobody gives a shit about you, your property, or the rights you dream you have, you narcissist loon. If you don't want to live in that state anymore then you can sell your property and move. Nobody's going to war for you, Helena of Troy.

So might is right? Because secession is a declaration of war

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Is that what I said?

No it isn't, is it?

Yes it is.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk