Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[paperview]

There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal?

Texas v White.

Fin.

That's not a law. That's a bogus claim with no visible means of support issue by a gang of Lincoln selected hacks.

It's case law, you fucknut.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.

In other words, it's nothing but the opinions of a bunch of political hacks put on the court specifically to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

Great. Give it your best shot at breaking case law.

We look forward to reading about it when you are arrested by the "fairy tale.".

 

[bripat9643]

There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal?

Texas v White.

Fin.

That's not a law. That's a bogus claim with no visible means of support issue by a gang of Lincoln selected hacks.

It's case law, you fucknut.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.

In other words, it's nothing but the opinions of a bunch of political hacks put on the court specifically to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

Great. Give it your best shot at breaking case law.

We look forward to reading about it when you are arrested by the "fairy tale.".

What you and some the other sleazier Lincoln cult members are trying to do here is blur the distinction between SC decisions being correct and them having the force of law. Anyone who claims that the Supreme Court is infallible is either stupid or dishonest. In your case I assume the later. If the SC if fallible, then some of their decisions must be wrong from a factual point of view. Pointing out that I will get arrested for violating them proves nothing other than your eagerness to have your political opponents to thrown in prison.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[paperview]

Texas v White.

Fin.

That's not a law. That's a bogus claim with no visible means of support issue by a gang of Lincoln selected hacks.

It's case law, you fucknut.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.

In other words, it's nothing but the opinions of a bunch of political hacks put on the court specifically to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

Great. Give it your best shot at breaking case law.

We look forward to reading about it when you are arrested by the "fairy tale.".

What you and some the other sleazier Lincoln cult members are trying to do here is blur the distinction between SC decisions being correct and them having the force of law. Anyone who claims that the Supreme Court is infallible is either stupid or dishonest. In your case I assume the later. If the SC if fallible, then some of their decisions must be wrong. Pointing out that I will get arrested for violating them proves nothing other than your eagerness to have your political opponents to thrown in prison.

^ Proof. Rule of Law means noting to these idiots.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why are Canadians so interested in US states secession? Who are these Canadians working for?

 

[bripat9643]

That's not a law. That's a bogus claim with no visible means of support issue by a gang of Lincoln selected hacks.

It's case law, you fucknut.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.

In other words, it's nothing but the opinions of a bunch of political hacks put on the court specifically to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

Great. Give it your best shot at breaking case law.

We look forward to reading about it when you are arrested by the "fairy tale.".

What you and some the other sleazier Lincoln cult members are trying to do here is blur the distinction between SC decisions being correct and them having the force of law. Anyone who claims that the Supreme Court is infallible is either stupid or dishonest. In your case I assume the later. If the SC if fallible, then some of their decisions must be wrong. Pointing out that I will get arrested for violating them proves nothing other than your eagerness to have your political opponents to thrown in prison.

^ Proof. Rule of Law means noting to these idiots.

It means everything to us. That's why we don't have respect for judge made law.

It's ironic that that someone who worships Lincoln and Obama, who have wiped their asses on the Constitution, would be whining about others not respecting the rule of law.

 

[paperview]

It means everything to us. That's why we don't have respect for judge made law.

Fine. Go ahead and break the law.

I encourage it.

I look forward to reading about your trial too.

 

[Toro]

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

rofl



Outstanding.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Uhm, no. And it's been explained to you about 50 times on this thread.

Question: are you brain damaged, or simply an idiot savant?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's case law, you fucknut.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.

In other words, it's nothing but the opinions of a bunch of political hacks put on the court specifically to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

Great. Give it your best shot at breaking case law.

We look forward to reading about it when you are arrested by the "fairy tale.".

What you and some the other sleazier Lincoln cult members are trying to do here is blur the distinction between SC decisions being correct and them having the force of law. Anyone who claims that the Supreme Court is infallible is either stupid or dishonest. In your case I assume the later. If the SC if fallible, then some of their decisions must be wrong. Pointing out that I will get arrested for violating them proves nothing other than your eagerness to have your political opponents to thrown in prison.

^ Proof. Rule of Law means noting to these idiots.

It means everything to us. That's why we don't have respect for judge made law.

It's ironic that that someone who worships Lincoln and Obama, who have wiped their asses on the Constitution, would be whining about others not respecting the rule of law.

You don't have respect for anything – the Constitution, its case law, or the rule of law; you're willfully ignorant and arrogant, the premise of this thread is nothing more than a childish temper-tantrum on your part because the Supreme Court didn't rule the way you wanted it to.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Uhm, no. And it's been explained to you about 50 times on this thread.

Question: are you brain damaged, or simply an idiot savant?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

No, it's been repeated 50 times, and it's been wrong 50 times. The only evidence we have the secession violates the Supremacy clause is NYCarbineer's insistence that it doesn't. His understanding of the clause is that a state can't do anything the federal government doesn't want it to do even if there's no statute prohibiting it. I can't imagine a bigger pile of bullshit than that.

 

[paperview]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Uhm, no. And it's been explained to you about 50 times on this thread.

Question: are you brain damaged, or simply an idiot savant?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

No, it's been repeated 50 times, and it's been wrong 50 times. The only evidence we have the secession violates the Supremacy clause is NYCarbineer's insistence that it doesn't. His understanding of the clause is that a state can't do anything the federal government doesn't want it to do even if there's no statute prohibiting it. I can't imagine a bigger pile of bullshit than that.

All you do is bellyache on a messageboard.

Grow some fucking stones and TRY IT.

Do it. Until you put some meat in your flappers, you're nothing but a COWARD.

Do it. Or be known for the coward all your 50 thousand impotent words are....

Do it!

COWARD.

 

[there4eyeM]

Still no refutation of Perpetual Union.

 

[Skylar]

There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal?

Texas v White.

Fin.

That's not a law. That's a bogus claim with no visible means of support issue by a gang of Lincoln selected hacks.

It's case law, you fucknut.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not valid.

In other words, it's nothing but the opinions of a bunch of political hacks put on the court specifically to make the decisions their benefactors wanted them to make.

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

Says you citing you. And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. For example.....since we're on the topic of lies and fairy 'tails', why don't you show us anything to back your distinction of 'federal property' and 'federal territory' as it relates to federal jurisdiction. There's no mention anywhere in US law that callng something 'federal property' magically removes federal jurisdiction. No where in the constitution is that distinction recognized. No where in the constitutional convention is it mentioned.

You literally made it up. And then based your entire secession argument on it. And your imagination isn't legal evidence. That's the absurdity of your position. You ignore Madison, the father of the constitution, you ignore the constitution, you ignore the supremecy clause, you ignore every court ruling that contradicts you......

......and replace it with jack shit. As you can't back your claims. Leaving us with the most relevant question:

Why would we give a shit what nonsense you tell yourself when you can't back your bullshit up?

 

[Skylar]

"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence." [80 U.S. 646, 650]

Lincoln cult Propaganda.

That's the United States Supreme Court. Which, per both the constitution, adjudicates issues of constitutional significance. And per the Federalist papers is supposed to interpret the constitution.

You insist we ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe whatever hapless batshit you make up. You pull some imaginary distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' out of your ass......and can't back any of it. Yet still insist that you must be right and the Supreme Court wrong.

Sorry, Brit....but your imagination isn't legal evidence. The lies you tell yourself isn't a compelling argument.

 

[Skylar]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Uhm, no. And it's been explained to you about 50 times on this thread.

Question: are you brain damaged, or simply an idiot savant?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

No, it's been repeated 50 times, and it's been wrong 50 times. The only evidence we have the secession violates the Supremacy clause is NYCarbineer's insistence that it doesn't. His understanding of the clause is that a state can't do anything the federal government doesn't want it to do even if there's no statute prohibiting it. I can't imagine a bigger pile of bullshit than that.

The Supremecy clause establishes, unambiguously, federal jurisdiction over all territory within a State. If the federal government can apply its law in the territory within a state then it is a sovereign of that territory. Since a State can also apply its laws to the same territory, the State and Federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. Or what Madison called 'concurrent government'.

And if you want to make any territorial decisions for territory under two sovereigns, you need the agreement of both. Not just one or the other. The Federal government can't unilaterally cede State territory to another state or power. Nor can the State unilaterally do the same. Only through agreement between the Federal and State government can territorial decisions be made.

As an example, look at the District of Columbia. Both Virginia and Maryland had to grant their permission for the land to be ceded for the capital. The federal government also had to agree. Only when BOTH sovereigns agreed could territorial decisions be made.

South Carolina didn't get the agreement of the other sovereign of the territory within South Carolina: the Federal government. And without the agreement of BOTH sovereigns, no territorial changes can be made. Thus, the territory remained under concurrent jurisdiction. As every State is part of the United States. And the US federal government has jurisdiction over the whole of the United States.

Including the territory in South Carolina.

 

[Faun]

Case Law is mostly a collection of lies and fairy tails.

rofl



Outstanding.

Fucking amazing, idn't it? Secession was legal to these morons because the law is what they say it is, not what the Constitution says it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Uhm, no. And it's been explained to you about 50 times on this thread.

Question: are you brain damaged, or simply an idiot savant?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

No, it's been repeated 50 times, and it's been wrong 50 times. The only evidence we have the secession violates the Supremacy clause is NYCarbineer's insistence that it doesn't. His understanding of the clause is that a state can't do anything the federal government doesn't want it to do even if there's no statute prohibiting it. I can't imagine a bigger pile of bullshit than that.

For the thousandth time, secession necessitates breaking federal law. The Supremacy Clause says a state cannot make laws that violate federal law. The Supremacy Clause is the basis for the power of judicial review.

The act of secession declares the Supremacy Clause null and void. There is no such power of a state to do so.

There is nothing, anywhere, in the Constitution that empowers a state to arbitrarily void clauses of the Constitution.

 

[Socialist]

If there are irrefutable legal arguments that states have the right to secede, why didn't those Southern Civil War states use those irrefutable legal arguments earlier?

Lincoln didn't give a damn about logic and facts. He was an accomplished manipulator and propagandist, and he used his skills to get the result he wanted. The dumbass Yankees were too stupid to see through his con.

But if the arguments were irrefutable how could Lincoln resist? Sounds like the arguments were refutable, and if that's true and the law doesn't work that pretty much leaves force, and force didn't seem to work either.

Lincoln ignored logic for the same reason you do, because he was a thug.

Lincoln ignored logic? Oh yes, because the ramblings of a paranoid right winger on a message board are completely relevant to Abraham Lincolns history as a man who helped stop a bunch of racist white idiots from continuing slavery on a massive scale for their own profit. If that makes him a thug, we need more like him.

 

[Socialist]

Looks like I'm late to the party..