Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[there4eyeM]

Show when the Perpetual Union ended.

 

[kaz]

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

If New York has the right to secede, then so does every other state. You can't claim some states have rights that other states don't have. They were all admitted to the Union on the same basis, as sovereign states.

When government forces States to remain in the union and be the bitches of the Federal government, the government then does not have the consent of the governed. It's sad that doesn't phase liberals

 

[kaz]

Show when the Perpetual Union ended.

Begging the question.

Show when the consent of the governed stopped being relevant to the legitimacy of governmental authority

 

[Skylar]

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

Right, it's South Carolina ... land ... moron. South Carolina did not declare ownership of the possessions of the Fort, they told the Union to leave. And it was ... four months ... before they attempted to remove them. How stupid are you?

^ kaz.

Too stupid for words, and always, always wrong.

You made shit up and then just kept saying I was wrong. I'd say you're a rhetorical genius, but that's just too much sarcasm for me, I might pull a muscle. You claimed that Kentucky could claim the contents of Fort Knox, not just kick the feds off the land. So, show that South Carolina claimed the contents of Fort Knox, they didn't just tell the Feds to leave

Kentucky could do neither. Federal law applies to the States, demonstrating unambiguously that Kentucky shares jurisdiction over the territory of Kentucky with the Federal government. Meaning that the Kentucky has two sovereigns: the State of Kentucky and the United States Federal government, which share concurrent jurisdiction over the territory.

And with two sovereigns no territorial decisions could be made with the consent of both. One or the other would be insufficient. For example, when the District of Columbia was founded the State that was ceding territory had to agree to relinquish that land. The State could not be compelled unilaterally by the federal government. As despite the fact that the Federal government held jurisdiction over the territory that would eventually become DC, the State also held jurisdiction. Thus, the only way that territorial changes could be made were when both the State and the Federal government agreed.

Likewise, the State of Kentucky couldn't unilaterally change the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the federal government over the territory that the Federal government shares sovereignty with the State of Kentucky. If both the US federal government and the State of Kentucky government agreed on territorial changes, only then would they be valid. And depending on the change, they may require the vote of other states as well.

The US federal government never granted consent for any of the territorial changes proposed by the southern states. Thus, no territorial changes occured. The concurrent jurisdiction of both the State and Federal government remained.

 

[kaz]

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

Nope. The United States is the States and territories and holdings.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

And this from a ruling that predates the Civil war by more than 40 years. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were still alive when this ruling came down. The States are part of the United States.

This distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is made up pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized under our system of law. Nor has ever been. As ALL the United States is federal territory. Though most of it is shared with individual States. ANd since the territory belongs to BOTH the States and the Federal Government, there's no way that a State alone could make territorial decisions. Both sovereigns would have to agree.

And both didn't.

That doesn't sound like the kind of language Jefferson or Adams would use. Please cite the source.

He pulled it it of of the Encyclopedia Hisattica, fourth edition

 

[paperview]

read the document, dum

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so fucking wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School


Read the ratification document, dumbass. It says the people of New York reserve the right to resume all powers granted to the federal government.

They proposed that -- and what the fuck happened?

Dumbass.

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Yes. "In toto and forever."

You're completely immune to facts, and make a fool of yourself with every post.

 

[Skylar]

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

Nope. The United States is the States and territories and holdings.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

And this from a ruling that predates the Civil war by more than 40 years. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were still alive when this ruling came down. The States are part of the United States.

This distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is made up pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized under our system of law. Nor has ever been. As ALL the United States is federal territory. Though most of it is shared with individual States. ANd since the territory belongs to BOTH the States and the Federal Government, there's no way that a State alone could make territorial decisions. Both sovereigns would have to agree.

And both didn't.

That doesn't sound like the kind of language Jefferson or Adams would use. Please cite the source.

He pulled it it of of the Encyclopedia Hisattica, fourth edition

Show me, don't tell me. Brit has invented a distinction between federal property and federal territory as it relates to the jurisdiction of US law. But as the USSC recognized, federal jurisdiction extends to every State, territory and holding. With the constitution elaborating all sorts of laws that the US federal government could create and apply to the States.

Demonstrating unambiguously that the US federal government shared jursidiction with the States. And that the States were part of the United States. Concurrent jurisdiction between the State and Federal government is a well established legal principle.

Calling territory 'federal property' and then insisting the US law doesn't have jurisdiction? That's pseudo-legal gibberish, reflected in no law nor any case law in our legal system. There's no mention of it in the constitution. There's no mention of it in the constitutional congress. There is no State that isn't also part of the United States. And thus, no part of any state without concurrent jursidictions.

While there is territory within the United States that is not part of any State. And thus has a sole sovereign: the US federal government. There is no corollary with State government.

Which is why when I ask Brit to show us, not tell us about his imaginary distinction where calling territory 'federal property' suddenly robs the US government of jurisdiction.....he's got jack shit. He imagined it. And his imagination has no relevance to any legal discussion.

 

[paperview]

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

Right, it's South Carolina ... land ... moron. South Carolina did not declare ownership of the possessions of the Fort, they told the Union to leave. And it was ... four months ... before they attempted to remove them. How stupid are you?

^ kaz.

Too stupid for words, and always, always wrong.

You made shit up and then just kept saying I was wrong. I'd say you're a rhetorical genius, but that's just too much sarcasm for me, I might pull a muscle. You claimed that Kentucky could claim the contents of Fort Knox, not just kick the feds off the land. So, show that South Carolina claimed the contents of Fort Knox, they didn't just tell the Feds to leave

^ Swear to dog, she writes and thinks like a seven year old.

Just wow.

 

[bripat9643]

Show when the Perpetual Union ended.

Been there. Done that.

 

[bripat9643]

read the document, dum

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so fucking wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School


Read the ratification document, dumbass. It says the people of New York reserve the right to resume all powers granted to the federal government.

They proposed that -- and what the fuck happened?

Dumbass.

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Yes. "In toto and forever."

You're completely immune to facts, and make a fool of yourself with every post.

Read the actual document, dumbass. How could anything be more authoritative than the actual historical document?

 

[there4eyeM]

Opinion unsupported by fact is not having been there nor having done that.
LINK!

 

[Skylar]

read the document, dum

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so fucking wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School


Read the ratification document, dumbass. It says the people of New York reserve the right to resume all powers granted to the federal government.

They proposed that -- and what the fuck happened?

Dumbass.

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Yes. "In toto and forever."

You're completely immune to facts, and make a fool of yourself with every post.

Read the actual document, dumbass. How could anything be more authoritative than the actual historical document?

Show us anywhere in the constitution there is any provision for conditional ratification. Or any provision for one state to have special privileges that the others do not.

Neither exist in the constitution. And per your own standard, neither have any basis in fact. Nor is there the slightest mention of the right to secede in the constitution. Nor is there the slightest mention of conditional ratification in the constitutional congress.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

Nope. The United States is the States and territories and holdings.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

And this from a ruling that predates the Civil war by more than 40 years. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were still alive when this ruling came down. The States are part of the United States.

This distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is made up pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized under our system of law. Nor has ever been. As ALL the United States is federal territory. Though most of it is shared with individual States. ANd since the territory belongs to BOTH the States and the Federal Government, there's no way that a State alone could make territorial decisions. Both sovereigns would have to agree.

And both didn't.

That doesn't sound like the kind of language Jefferson or Adams would use. Please cite the source.

He pulled it it of of the Encyclopedia Hisattica, fourth edition

Notice he/she produced no cites. Obviously making stuff up is the modus operandi for the Lincoln cult.

 

[paperview]

read the document, dum

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so fucking wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School


Read the ratification document, dumbass. It says the people of New York reserve the right to resume all powers granted to the federal government.

They proposed that -- and what the fuck happened?

Dumbass.

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Yes. "In toto and forever."

You're completely immune to facts, and make a fool of yourself with every post.

Read the actual document, dumbass. How could anything be more authoritative than the actual historical document?

The one that said this?


"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Yes. "In toto and forever."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CLICK!

You appear to be severely retarded. I'm not kidding.

 

[paperview]

Jesus Christ -- this is so fucking stupid the lengths these Lost Causers will go.

Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes

to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to

propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of

a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the

Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it

does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she

could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires

an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate

the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I

suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to

add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.



This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered

as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a

rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

 

[Skylar]

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

Nope. The United States is the States and territories and holdings.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

And this from a ruling that predates the Civil war by more than 40 years. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were still alive when this ruling came down. The States are part of the United States.

This distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is made up pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized under our system of law. Nor has ever been. As ALL the United States is federal territory. Though most of it is shared with individual States. ANd since the territory belongs to BOTH the States and the Federal Government, there's no way that a State alone could make territorial decisions. Both sovereigns would have to agree.

And both didn't.

That doesn't sound like the kind of language Jefferson or Adams would use. Please cite the source.

He pulled it it of of the Encyclopedia Hisattica, fourth edition

Notice he/she produced no cites. Obviously making stuff up is the modus operandi for the Lincoln cult.

Notice how you can't back up your claims. You insist that there is distinction between federal property and federal territory as it relates to federal jurisdiction. There is no such distinction. Calling territory 'federal property' doesn't magically mean that the US federal government no longer has jurisdiction over that territory. Not in the law, not in the constitution, not in the constitutional congress, not in caselaw.

You made that up, pulled sideways out of your ass.

Instead, US federal law applies to all states. As all states are part of the United States. As the USSC recognized 40 years before the civil war:

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

Simply obliterating your argument. As the federal government clearly has jurisdiction over all of its territory, including every state. Which demonstrates, unquestioningly, that the all territory in a state has two sovereigns with concurrent jurisdiction: the State government and the Federal government.

You can't back any part of your claims with anything. While I've demolished your claims with USSC references and the Constitution recognizing the US federal government's jurisdiction over states.

 

[Skylar]

Jesus Christ -- this is so fucking stupid the lengths these Lost Causers will go.

Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes

to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to

propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of

a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the

Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it

does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she

could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires

an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate

the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I

suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to

add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.



This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered

as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a

rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

What would the 'Father of the COnstitution' know about what the constittuion was supposed to mean.

That's why Brit's argument is so fallow. He moves his goal posts constantly. He'll insist that unless the constitution says it, it has no basis in fact. And when you point out that none of his claims are mentioned in the constitution, he'll cite some constitution era quote that he believes supports his argument. Yet when you bring out James 'I'm the Father of the Motherfucking Constitution' Madison explicitly contradicting him.....Brit insists only what is in the constitution is valid.

Brainwash. Rinse. Repeat.

Its like watching a dog chase his own tail. And elegantly demonstrates why none of his pseudo-legal gibberish has ever been recognized as legally valid. Ever.

 

[bripat9643]

Jesus Christ -- this is so fucking stupid the lengths these Lost Causers will go.

Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes

to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to

propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of

a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the

Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it

does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she

could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires

an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate

the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I

suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to

add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.



This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered

as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a

rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

Madison and Secession Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Madison, in his advocacy for ratification of the Constitution and later in his objection to Alexander Hamilton’s Bank Bill, stated that understanding the Constitution required reliance on what the states understood it to mean when they ratified it. This is interesting because Madison’s home state of Virginia stated that the powers that the states delegated “may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiment. So, the ratification convention which Madison participated in clearly expressed its right to secession, and Madison repeatedly affirmed this understanding of the Constitution.
​

Do States Have a Right of Secession - Capitalism Magazine

Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'”
​

The opinion of one man isn't sufficient to carry the day on an issue that involved thousands of people. At most, it's just his opinion. Plenty of people held the opposite opinion. They certainly weren't willing to go to war over it.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Image of what a coward with a firearm can accomplish.

Now imagine a Democrat standing behind a taxpayer and you're starting to get it

Democracy is murder?

Do you have a better system?

Democracy often is murder. Remember Waco?

Waco was not passing tax legislation you retard.

Jesus.

The FBI has murdered tax protestors as well. Government kills people. How else do you think it enforces all those feel-good laws turds like you support?

So what would you like to replace a democratic government with?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter...

Illegally, illegitimately, by a bunch of traitorous dogs. They were put down, and to have delusional fools like you take up their treason is beyond absurd.

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

An illegal of secession does not create a new country. You're arguing in circles. You're trying to argue that secession is legal because secession is legal. That's not an argument,

that's like the fundie Christian who tells you something is a fact because it's in the Bible, and then when you ask him why that makes it a fact,

he tells you because it's the Bible.