Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

NY isn't simply NY State territory. Its also territory of the United States which holds concurrent jurisdiction. No unilateral action could be taken by either party. It would be like a couple that owned a house. One party couldn't sell the house without the consent of the other.

So a vote by the majority of the people of NY would be only half of the equation.

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

 

[Bombur]

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The real question is whether the US would take up arms against a state or states that decided to secede. Its not about 'permission' or 'legality'.

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Why not divide the country into the liberal states and the conservative states, split the national assets and debts evenly and then see which system worked best. The blue states would all look like Detroit and the red would be rich and successful.

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Nope. Their actions were explicitly criminal under the system of laws that they lived under. Had they lost they would have been executed as traitors and insurrectionists. They didn't lose. So they are the founders of a new nation.

However, the topic of this discussion is legal arguments justifying secession under our constitution. And secession isn't legal under our constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not.

Its certainly relevant to this conversation about legal arguments. And given your complete abandonment of a legal argument, it appears you've give us your answer on whether or not you believe a State can legally secede.

It obviously can't.

the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Any law is meaningless if it isn't enforced. However, the US has a history of enforcing its territorial claims in response to secession. As this would be US territory that the State were trying to claim for itself.

And it has a history of putting down rebellions and insurrections. Which this would be.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Our citiens are entitled to protections from the Constitution. Not merely 'a' constitution. If you seek to deny them property or their constitutional rights, the US would have an interest in protecting both. So there would be even more incentive for the US government to intercede in any secession attempts.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

If a state had the authority to unilaterally secede and become its own nation at will, your argument might have merit.

But it doesn't.

So we're speaking of the protection of US citizens, their property, and their rights on US territory. As all of any State is. Remember, each state has two sovereigns, each with concurrent jurisdiction: the State and the Federal government. You'd need the authorization from both sovereigns for any territory to change hands. And in a unilateral 'secession', you'd have the authority of only one.

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

His point is that war settles such issues practically. I'm arguing that there is no valid legal argument for unilateral secession. As this thread is about legal arguments, my point is far more relevant than his for the issues being discussed.

You aren't arguing it. You're just stating it over and over again.

 

[Contumacious]

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

YO VERN,


WHY DIDN'T SOVIET PRIME MINISTER MIKHAIL GORBACHEV CONCOCT THE SAME PRETEXT BEFORE WIPING OUT 650, 000 SOVIET CITIZENS AND BOMBING THE BREAKWAY REPUBLICS INTO SUBMISSION?

 

[NYcarbineer]

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

YO VERN,


WHY DIDN'T SOVIET PRIME MINISTER MIKHAIL GORBACHEV CONCOCT THE SAME PRETEXT BEFORE WIPING OUT 650, 000 SOVIET CITIZENS AND BOMBING THE BREAKWAY REPUBLICS INTO SUBMISSION?

WTF?

 

[bripat9643]

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

Yeah, couple things happened before that so I think you might want to try again. Or not I don't really care. You don't seem capable of not being delusional.

Nothing happened that forced Lincoln to invade Virginia. Only a fool would believe he had no choice. Of course, all you turds choose to delude yourselves because facing the truth is too horrible to contemplate.

 

[bripat9643]

Given that you've just utterly abandoned the 'legality' argument, have you acknowledged that unilateral secession isn't legal?

Because there are more than 2 perspectives.

Nor would we leave US citizens to have either their property or rights stripped from them in a 'conservative' state that dreams itself its own country. As you know the stripping of constitutional protections would be one of the first things that conservatives states would do if unconfined by the US constitution.

pay attention. it doesn't matter if its legal or not. the seceding states would secede from the USA and its laws and constitution and form a new country with its own laws and constitution. The US could declare it "illegal" if it wanted to but it would be meaningless unless they were willing to go to war over it.

Constitutional rights would be established by the new country and its new constitution.

Where your thinking goes wrong is when you assume that the US constitution is valid in any country other than the US.

Yeah, it actually does matter. The whole liberal narrative is based on the theory that the Civil War was a crusade for justice and everything good about America, and they've been trading on that ever since. Every school boy has tons of propaganda rammed into his head based on liberal myths about the war. It turns out the truth is that Lincoln was a brutal mass murdering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution. If people knew that, they would have a whole different attitude about all these laws designed to overturn society that liberals have been assaulting us with for 60 years.

The civil war was the evil south throwing a treasonous hissy fit over the erosion of their capacity to maintain the institution of slavery.

The civil war was stupid and horrible. It was not necessary and any sane American would have preferred that it never happened. Unfortunately it did happen and fortunately we had a fantastic leader to bring us through it and fortunately it helped us end that horrible period of American history where we so blatantly disregarded the God given rights of man.

It happened because Lincoln invaded Virginia. You Lincoln worshipping turds behave as if Lincoln had no other choice. Any school boy can see that he did.

He didn't have a choice as long as he respected his oath of office.

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address:

Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Where does his oath of office say he had to invade Virginia? There is no provision in the Constitution that commanded him to do so. In fact, do so is how treason is defined. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the union has to last forever. You idiots simply make it up and then petulantly insist it to be true. No rational person can actually see such language in the document.

 

[bripat9643]

Did the Ukraine and the other former members of the USSR get permission from Moscow to leave the USSR ?

This whole debate is foolish. Legality has nothing to do with it. The constitution has nothing to do with it.

The USSR dissolved. The United States is still here.

You're just too fucking stupid to get the point.

His point is that war settles such issues practically. I'm arguing that there is no valid legal argument for unilateral secession. As this thread is about legal arguments, my point is far more relevant than his for the issues being discussed.

No its not. the premise of the OP is false. That is like saying that a US citizen in China is protected by the US constitution.

A state can't secede unilaterally. So it would remain US territory. Thus, we're speaking of a US citizen in the US protected by the US constitution.

You keep saying that. The point of this thread is for you to prove it. So far you have failed miserably at the task.

 

[bripat9643]

Thus are refuted the refutable arguments.

Nothing has been refuted. You don't win a debate by declaring yourself the victor and then patting yourself on the back.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Wrong. That's totally unsubstantiated horseshit. Wishing it were true does not make it true. If it weren't for made up facts, you Lincoln worshiping turds would have no arguments whatsoever.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not if it secedes, moron. The only jurisdiction the U.S. has over New York is specified in the Constitution, and that doesn't mention secession.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Neither was the United States. The Constitution doesn't mention it.

 

[there4eyeM]

The United States was and is a Perpetual Union, as formed and continued more perfectly by the present Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It will continue within the borders of the United States. All you have to do to exercise your rights is relocate to the United States. Your belief that you can exercise your rights in a foreign country is idiotic.

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?

New York will honor the laws it chooses to honor, just like every other country. No on living in New York will be required by the government of New York to pay taxes to the U.S., obviously. Do you pay taxes to France? Mexico?

This line of argument is monumentally stupid.

 

[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.

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.

The supremacy clause is null and void if a state secedes. That's the whole point of secession, numskull.

 

[there4eyeM]

Secession from the Perpetual Union is not a legal option.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Lincoln never pointed out any such "truth," hosebag. If you think he did, then quote him saying so. I can post a number of quotes that prove Lincoln was a white supremacist.

 

[bripat9643]

Secession from the Perpetual Union is not a legal option.

There was no "perpetual union." That's just another made up Lincoln cult "fact."

 

[there4eyeM]

...but no links that prove the Perpetual Union ended.