Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[kaz]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Where does the Constitution say that "case law" replaced the Constitution again?

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

You are personally free to emigrate at any time. Take that low-life piece of shit bripunk with you. We have no use for trash like both.

Yep, my home is of course yours. So if I don't want to follow your rules, I should give it to you and just leave. How are you different than the left again?

 

[Unkotare]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

You are personally free to emigrate at any time. Take that low-life piece of shit bripunk with you. We have no use for trash like both.

Yep, my home is of course yours. ...

Don't want it, just GTFO.

 

[bendog]

Such a display of frustrated childishness! Little middle fingers must indicate other limitations, particularly, intellectual ones.
As for the topic, the entire Civil War episode is nothing but sad and tragic. Nobody won, not even the 'freed' slaves, really, as their situation barely evolved for many years in terms of 'quality of life'.
That Lincoln took the measures he did created unsettling precedents, it must be admitted. America was changed by the event of the secession movement, and not in the direction of its original intent.
Yet, some aspects were positive and did reinforce the nation. The mere fact that in the middle of a gigantic internal struggle there were regular presidential elections is a marvel, in retrospect. What other country would have dared such a thing? This showed a profound, abiding faith in democracy. It also established that, however unpleasant, the intervention of the whole to save the part should and would be done.
We must remember that.

Exactly so. It was actually less then 50 years from when the United States was preserved that we had to intervene to save democracy in Europe. Could America have accomplished that if the South had been allowed to secede? But, yes, the Federal govt became more powerful as a result of the Civil War, and again and more so with the depression, WWII and the cold war. And now the "war on terror," with people using social media to contemplate more Boston Marathon bombings. It's a hopefully never ending tension between the vision of personal freedom of the founders and the world as it now exists.

 

[kaz]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

You are personally free to emigrate at any time. Take that low-life piece of shit bripunk with you. We have no use for trash like both.

Yep, my home is of course yours. ...

Don't want it, just GTFO.

You GTFO. There are plenty of countries in the world for you who don't give a shit about your consent to govern you that would meet your objective

 

[Unkotare]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

 

[kaz]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

 

[Unkotare]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. ...

And you have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

 

[kaz]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. ...

And you have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

I've been proven wrong about what? You found the power to block secession in the Constitution? As a document of enumerated powers, if it's not there, it's not a Federal power. So I'm curious where you found that one, I haven't seen it.

And you didn't answer the question, I only argued the States have a right to secede, so who am I an apologist for?

 

[Unkotare]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. ...

And you have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

I've been proven wrong about what? ...

About secession, fool.

 

[bendog]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

 

[kaz]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. ...

And you have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

I've been proven wrong about what? ...

About secession, fool.

So you found that the consent of the governed isn't necessary for the Federal government in the Constitution? We are subjects, not citizens of the United States? Where was that?

 

[kaz]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

 

[bripat9643]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

 

[kaz]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Secessionists dictated that strong measures were necessary. Any bad results can be laid at their feet.

Lincoln cultists dictated that strong measures were necessary. Any bad results can be laid at their feet.

When those in rebellion killed US troops, they began an armed conflict. The South can hardly complain about the outcome of a fight they started.

I'm glad you still don't see the futility in repeating such an argument over and over. It preserves my impression that most Leftists are terminally stupid.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Where does the Constitution say that "case law" replaced the Constitution again?

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

You are personally free to emigrate at any time. Take that low-life piece of shit bripunk with you. We have no use for trash like both.

Who do you think "we" is. You don't speak for anyone but your damn self.

 

[bendog]

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not quite sure what you mean. State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers. that they had BEFORE the constitution (and articles of confederation). But there was no right to secede, if one exists, in existence before they ratified the Constitution and Articles ... because there was nothing to secede from.

So, I think we're back to the question of whether the southern states ratified the constitution on a premised belief that they "deratify." The Articles of Confederation did not provide that right for and individual, and to end the Articles or amend them, 9 of the 13 had to agree.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You GTFO. ...

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

So ex felons don't pay taxes?

 

[kaz]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

You are personally free to emigrate at any time. Take that low-life piece of shit bripunk with you. We have no use for trash like both.

Who do you think "we" is. You don't speak for anyone but your damn self.

By "we" he means subjects of government, like himself

 

[kaz]

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not quite sure what you mean. State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers. that they had BEFORE the constitution (and articles of confederation). But there was no right to secede, if one exists, in existence before they ratified the Constitution and Articles ... because there was nothing to secede from.

So, I think we're back to the question of whether the southern states ratified the constitution on a premised belief that they "deratify." The Articles of Confederation did not provide that right for and individual, and to end the Articles or amend them, 9 of the 13 had to agree.

How is that confusing to you? You even said it: "State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers."

Those are enumerated powers of the Federal government. The right to block a State seceding was never granted to the Federal government, so it's not a power. The Constitution defines Federal powers, it does not define State powers.

The Constitution isn't an agreement between the States and the Federal government. It's a document from the States and their people telling the Federal government, you can do these things and ONLY (10th amendment) these things. It does not say you can do these things, if it's not there we'll go to an arbitrator. It says if it's not there it's "prohibited" to the Federal government.

The Constitution gives the States the clear upper hand, they define what the Federal government can do, the Federal government has no say in that.

If you and your friends start a company, you write down bylaws that say what the company can do and how it operates. The company can't do anything other than what you authorize it to do