Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[NYcarbineer]

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.​

No, all that matters is what rule of law was established by the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is the rule of law, and it made secession illegal.

 

[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?

It's no coincidence that liberals are unable to absorb and process new information, you have to be unable to reason to be a liberal

The Southern rebellion did not make US soil something other than US soil.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The states consented to be governed by the Constitution.

 

[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.​

No, all that matters is what rule of law was established by the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is the rule of law, and it made secession illegal.

Horseshit.

Every one of your arguments boils down to saying you're right and I'm wrong. You have nothing to back up your claims other than yourself.

As I pointed out numerous times, there is no federal law against secession. So exactly which fedreal law is supposed to be supreme that prevents secession?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.​

No, all that matters is what rule of law was established by the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is the rule of law, and it made secession illegal.

Horseshit.

Every one of your arguments boils down to saying you're right and I'm wrong. You have nothing to back up your claims other than yourself.

As I pointed out numerous times, there is no federal law against secession. So exactly which fedreal law is supposed to be supreme that prevents secession?

Are you saying the Supremacy Clause doesn't exist?

 

[Skylar]

"The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at large; does he infer that the people can in detached bodies contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the Constitution if they please, but while the Constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people: so far from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people."

What Madison Thought of Secession. - NYTimes.com

Madison did not believe in secession. He explicitly rejected the idea of a conditional ratification. And instead declared that ratification should be 'in toto and forever'. Neither of which denotes any support for secession.

Which Madison goes into elaborate detail describing why the 'right to secede' is a fallacy:

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it.

If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you; and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.

James Madison Letter to Nicholas Trist 1832

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/mjm/23/23_1158_1160.pdf

Madison couldn't be clearer, describing nullification and secession as a 'colossal heresy'. And explicitly recongized the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal Government:

"Nor is the Government of the United States created by the Constitution, less a Government in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers, than the Governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is like them organized into Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary Departments. It operates like them, directly on persons and things. And, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it. The concurrent operation in certain cases is one of the features marking the peculiarity of the system. "

James Madison, Letter to Edward Everett 1830

And it gets so much worse for the nullifies and secessionists:


"But it is understood that the nullifying doctrine imports that the decision of the State is to be presumed valid, and that it overrules the law of the United States unless overruled by three-fourths of the States.

Can more be necessary to demonstrate the inadmissibility of such a doctrine than that it puts it in the power of the smallest fraction over one-fourth of the United States—that is, of seven States out of twenty-four—to give the law and even the Constitution to seventeen States, each of the seventeen having as parties to the Constitution an equal right with each of the seven to expound it and to insist on the exposition. That the seven might, in particular instances be right and the seventeen wrong, is more than possible. But to establish a positive and permanent rule giving such a power to such a minority over such a majority, would overturn the first principle of free Government and in practice necessarily overturn the Government itself...

....What the fate of the Constitution of the United States would be if a small proportion of States could expunge parts of it particularly valued by a large majority, can have but one answer."

James Madison, Letter to Edward Everett 1830

 

[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

You were fully and completely trounced.


Best part is - you don't even know it.

Live the delusion!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Lincoln-Douglass debates prove your claim is wrong. Please post an example that proves Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves.

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

 

[paperview]

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

Said the Lost Cause cultist...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

For those of you who think secession is "illegal". Why didn't Lincoln just file suit against the confederacy? Thats how legal issues are resolved.

this whole thread is just foolish. Secession has nothing to do with legality.

It has nothing to do with 'think,' it is a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional law that 'secession' is un-Constitutional.

Otherwise, your 'question' exhibits the ignorance of the Constitution and its case law common to you and most others on the right.

I love how you twats think that case law is absolute. The states can abolish the Supreme Court and every decision it ever made if they want to. Seceding states are not subject to Supreme Court decisions.

Really? Can your county secede from your state?

I'm sure the rest of Idaho would greatly appreciate it. Ada County is one of the only two blue counties in the state.

Is that a yes or a no?

Make the argument that your county can legally secede from your state, declare itself a sovereign nation,

and commence to ignore state law.

This Constitutional Republic was created by sovereign states, not counties. Stay focused now.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

A federal territory is one in which ONLY federal authority exists. There's no such place for the States. There is no scenario where ONLY state government has jurisdiction. As every state is also federal territory. Though there are instances where federal holdings don't exist in any state. DC would be an example. And when DC was created, the State ceding the territory had to consent. The Federal government couldn't just unilaterally seize the land.

I don't think you have any idea what "federal" means. It isn't the same as national.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.​

No, all that matters is what rule of law was established by the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is the rule of law, and it made secession illegal.

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

 

[paperview]

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

 

[Wry Catcher]

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

 

[thanatos144]

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge some to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

The nra is a lobby not a cult. It never seem to dawn on you progressives why it is the largest lobbying organization in the country

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No it isn't. Martial law will fire back if fired upon, the choice is yours.

In other words, it's enforced by killing people. What happens when the National Guard gives me some illegal command and I give them the middle finger salute?

It responds to violence with violence. If you are given a legal command and you refuse you will be arrested and jailed until charges can be investigated and brought.

It responds to people who refuse to comply with government orders by shooting them.

You're an idiot if you don't know that.

Well that's the chance you will take isn't it?

Thanks for admitting that you endorse sending federal troops in to kill people who want to secede.

I support that fully.
You morons killed 600 thousand the last time around. I'll be damned if I let you fools make the same dumbassed mistake at the expense of millions of lives this time. We'll cut you down before you even start.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession"

The ignorance and stupidity of this, of course, is illustrated by the fact that Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of their respective states subordinate to that.

An American cannot have his citizenship taken from him against his will by the legislature of his state of residence or by popular vote – he remains always a citizen, and his state of residence remains part of the United States.

 

[I amso IR]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

 

[there4eyeM]

The states joined, were part of and remain part of the Perpetual Union that was formed at the outset. No one has produced a document to say this has changed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It has nothing to do with 'think,' it is a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional law that 'secession' is un-Constitutional.

Otherwise, your 'question' exhibits the ignorance of the Constitution and its case law common to you and most others on the right.

I love how you twats think that case law is absolute. The states can abolish the Supreme Court and every decision it ever made if they want to. Seceding states are not subject to Supreme Court decisions.

Really? Can your county secede from your state?

I'm sure the rest of Idaho would greatly appreciate it. Ada County is one of the only two blue counties in the state.

Is that a yes or a no?

Make the argument that your county can legally secede from your state, declare itself a sovereign nation,

and commence to ignore state law.

This Constitutional Republic was created by sovereign states, not counties. Stay focused now.

Learn to read.

If a state can legally secede from the Union, then your county can legally secede from your state, your township can legally secede from your county,

and you on your private property can legally secede from your township.

Do you really think all of that is true?