Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[paperview]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

You've been beaten and bloodied here by myself, and posters better than myself have cut off your legs, arms, red is spurting out of your torso -- and right now all you look like is this guy:



But I'll give ole stumpy another shot at showing his gums...

Q: Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Your delusions are charming if not enlightening. You haven't laid a glove on me. Repeating the same exploded arguments over and over and over isn't how you win a debate.

It doesn't make any difference what the Confederate constitution allowed, but like the U.S. Constitution it doesn't mention secession.

LOL

:

Didn't think you'd be able to handle that one --

And for the folks watching at home: we know why.

 

[kaz]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

He and the rest of the Lincoln cult like to pretend the Articles of Confederation are still in force - well, at least that one phrase. They ignore the rest of the document because it doesn't suit their purposes.

 

[bripat9643]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

You've been beaten and bloodied here by myself, and posters better than myself have cut off your legs, arms, red is spurting out of your torso -- and right now all you look like is this guy:



But I'll give ole stumpy another shot at showing his gums...

Q: Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Your delusions are charming if not enlightening. You haven't laid a glove on me. Repeating the same exploded arguments over and over and over isn't how you win a debate.

It doesn't make any difference what the Confederate constitution allowed, but like the U.S. Constitution it doesn't mention secession.

LOL

:

Didn't think you'd be able to handle that one --

And for the folks watching at home: we know why.

I knew you were going to run away like a scared little puppy dog.

 

[paperview]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

 

[paperview]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

You've been beaten and bloodied here by myself, and posters better than myself have cut off your legs, arms, red is spurting out of your torso -- and right now all you look like is this guy:



But I'll give ole stumpy another shot at showing his gums...

Q: Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Your delusions are charming if not enlightening. You haven't laid a glove on me. Repeating the same exploded arguments over and over and over isn't how you win a debate.

It doesn't make any difference what the Confederate constitution allowed, but like the U.S. Constitution it doesn't mention secession.

LOL

:

Didn't think you'd be able to handle that one --

And for the folks watching at home: we know why.

I knew you were going to run away like a scared little puppy dog.

Lookit bripat talking to himself.

lol.

Can't answer huh? lololol

 

[kaz]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

I lost interest when you told me you're an internet squawker and your opinion is irrelevant. You would know, I'll take your word for that. I'm not irrelevant, my voice is my voice. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself. I actually am

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I have not seen any support for a notion that a state could secede for "any' reason. You can read the Hamilton quote to mean either a state could secede if the federal took an unconstitutional power, OR the other states would never use force to coerce a state NOT to take that power.

I think your notion that every state can do that now because the fed govt has taken unconstitutional powers is childish, but it brings up a twist about the civil war. The Supreme Court decides what the fed govt has power to do, or not. But, in 1861, Justice Taney would probably have ruled for the states, but then again he was a Jacksonian democrat, and Jackson put down SC in the nullification crisis, so perhaps Taney's views were more limited to whether the fed govt could restrict new states from not being slave states. That is, if you owned a slave legally, where you took him or her, or what you did to him or her, were strictly your own biz. At any rate, Lincoln avoided the supreme court.

Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede.

Well said.

Everytime I read one of Kaz posts, I think she's childish.

She really doesn't have a good grasp on reality.

Question for all those who loves you the idea of secession and state over and over: where is it in the Constitution....

Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Yanno?

I should not have used childish, and I apologize to Kaz.

But, the scotus does determine what power the fed govt has. And, I thought it was interesting that Roberts found Obamacare const as a tax, but not under the commerce clause. And the commerce clause trumped the right to contract in civil rights, which, imo, was wrong.

And, I agree with her that the power of the fed govt increased due to the civil war, and again in 1932-45, and again with the WoT. But, that does not lead to a power to secede.

Scotus is a creation of the states and can be dissolved by the states. It isn't all powerful, it is a product of power. Religiously I win this argument with Protestants all the time when they insist that the Bible, a product of authority, somehow became the ultimate authority as a sole rule of faith. In both cases, there is a disconnect of logic of a wag-the-dog nature that perpetuates the assumption that the servant becomes the master. Secession is a natural right that the Supreme Court has no say over. I'm sure if the ratifiers had any idea how infinite the Supreme Court's authority has waxed in the minds of slavishly devoted statists such as yourself, they would have reconsidered centralizing our court system.

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

You're quoting the Texas v. White decision authored by Samual P. Chase, a Lincoln appointed hack. That alone is sufficient to laugh it out of the forum.

Notice that he never refers to the actual text of the Constitution to support his decision. Chase also makes some astounding claims such as his assertion that Texas was a state of the union during the Civil War. States have representation in the House and the Senate, so that claim is utterly preposterous.

 

[kaz]

But, the scotus does determine what power the fed govt has

Do you know who gave them that power? They did, the SCOTUS gave it to themselves.

And either way, the point was I said the government cannot give itself power, that isn't even judicial review which says what the powers they have mean and what the limits are, the SCOTUS does not have legitimate power to say that they are giving the government a power that isn't there. Those are different things. I keep trying to tell you that and it keeps not sticking

 

[bripat9643]

But, the scotus does determine what power the fed govt has

Do you know who gave them that power? They did, the SCOTUS gave it to themselves.

And either way, the point was I said the government cannot give itself power, that isn't even judicial review which says what the powers they have mean and what the limits are, the SCOTUS does not have legitimate power to say that they are giving the government a power that isn't there. Those are different things. I keep trying to tell you that and it keeps not sticking

Nothing that collides with his own personal reality is ever going to penetrate all the mental defenses he has installed.

Whenever you post to these cultists they behave as if they haven't ever read what you've said. They just repeat the same pathetic talking points over and over. They don't deserve to be called arguments because that would imply some kind of rational process went into constructing them.

 

[paperview]

... I'm not irrelevant, my voice is my voice. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself. I actually am

Voice all you want.

Your opinion, however, is wrong.

 

[paperview]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

You're quoting the Texas v. White decision authored by Samual P. Chase, a Lincoln appointed hack. That alone is sufficient to laugh it out of the forum.

Notice that he never refers to the actual text of the Constitution to support his decision. Chase also makes some astounding claims such as his assertion that Texas was a state of the union during the Civil War. States have representation in the House and the Senate, so that claim is utterly preposterous.

Heard it a thousand times from you bub.

You don't accept the Rule of Law in the Country and our system of government.

Ho hum.

"It is intended for perpetual union" - Robert E.Lee

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

You're quoting the Texas v. White decision authored by Samual P. Chase, a Lincoln appointed hack. That alone is sufficient to laugh it out of the forum.

Notice that he never refers to the actual text of the Constitution to support his decision. Chase also makes some astounding claims such as his assertion that Texas was a state of the union during the Civil War. States have representation in the House and the Senate, so that claim is utterly preposterous.

Heard it a thousand times from you bub.

You don't accept the Rule of Law in the Country and our system of government.

Ho hum.

"It is intended for perpetual union" - Robert E.Lee

You're right about not accepting our system of government. I don't accept fascism.

You must be joking if you refer to what our government enforces as "the rule of law." The Supreme Court doesn't even refer to the actual text of the Constitution when it renders its decisions. It changes the meaning of words. It makes things up from whole cloth. It lies.

And then there's the President who wipes his ass on the Constitution.

This is what you think Americans are supposed to respect. That isn't the rule of law. It's tyranny, pure and brutal.

 

[bripat9643]

... I'm not irrelevant, my voice is my voice. I'm sorry you think so little of yourself. I actually am

Voice all you want.

Your opinion, however, is wrong.

That pretty much sums up virtually all the "arguments" you have posted on the subject.

 

[paperview]

Yup. We were awfully damn kind to those rebel traitors, and Johnson was might nice to give Amnesty --

President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation.; Restoration to Rights of Property Except in Slaves. An Oath of Loyalty as a Condition Precedent.
Published: May 30, 1865
WASHINGTON, May 29.
A PROCLAMATION.
By the President of the United States of America:
<snip>
The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation: 1st, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate government;

2nd, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion;

3d, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy;

4th, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion;

5th, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion;

6th, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities;

7th, all persons who have been, or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

8th, all military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy;

9th, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States;

10th, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

11th, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States;

12th, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction;

13th, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars;

14th, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s proclamation of December 8th, A.D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate."

President Johnson s Amnesty Proclamation. - Restoration to Rights of Property Except in Slaves. An Oath of Loyalty as a Condition Precedent. Legality of Confiscation Proceedings Recognized. Exception of Certain Offenders from this Amnesty. By These Special Applications for Pardon May be Made. Reorganization in North Carolina. Appointment of a Provisional Governor. A State Covention to be Chosen by Loyal Citizens. The Machinery of the Federal Government to be Putin Operation. AMNESTY PROCLAMATION. - NYTimes.com

The pretended CSA government.

 

[paperview]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

I know what the phrase means, dumb ass, I'm asking what your claim the United States is a "perpetual union" is based on, that isn't in the Constitution anywhere. It was in the articles of confederation, which turned out to not be perpetual...

The people charged with deciding these things, not some internet squawker, say otherwise:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

And this guy said it too:


"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

You're quoting the Texas v. White decision authored by Samual P. Chase, a Lincoln appointed hack. That alone is sufficient to laugh it out of the forum.

Notice that he never refers to the actual text of the Constitution to support his decision. Chase also makes some astounding claims such as his assertion that Texas was a state of the union during the Civil War. States have representation in the House and the Senate, so that claim is utterly preposterous.

Heard it a thousand times from you bub.

You don't accept the Rule of Law in the Country and our system of government.

Ho hum.

"It is intended for perpetual union" - Robert E.Lee

You're right about not accepting our system of government. I don't accept fascism.

You must be joking if you refer to what our government enforces as "the rule of law." The Supreme Court doesn't even refer to the actual text of the Constitution when it renders its decisions. It changes the meaning of words. It makes things up from whole cloth. It lies.

And then there's the President who wipes his ass on the Constitution.

This is what you think Americans are supposed to respect. That isn't the rule of law. It's tyranny, pure and brutal.

^ In the running to be the next USMB kook we read about in the papers.

 

[bripat9643]

Yup. We were awfully damn kind to those rebel traitors, and Johnson was might nice to give Amnesty --

President Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation.; Restoration to Rights of Property Except in Slaves. An Oath of Loyalty as a Condition Precedent.
Published: May 30, 1865
WASHINGTON, May 29.
A PROCLAMATION.
By the President of the United States of America:
<snip>
The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation: 1st, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate government;

2nd, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion;

3d, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy;

4th, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion;

5th, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion;

6th, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities;

7th, all persons who have been, or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

8th, all military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy;

9th, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States;

10th, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion;

11th, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States;

12th, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction;

13th, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars;

14th, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s proclamation of December 8th, A.D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate."

President Johnson s Amnesty Proclamation. - Restoration to Rights of Property Except in Slaves. An Oath of Loyalty as a Condition Precedent. Legality of Confiscation Proceedings Recognized. Exception of Certain Offenders from this Amnesty. By These Special Applications for Pardon May be Made. Reorganization in North Carolina. Appointment of a Provisional Governor. A State Covention to be Chosen by Loyal Citizens. The Machinery of the Federal Government to be Putin Operation. AMNESTY PROCLAMATION. - NYTimes.com

The pretended CSA government.

What do you imagine that proves?

Was anyone the Confederacy ever prosecuted for treason?

 

[paperview]

A few were.

Most were pardoned. Like I said - we were nice chaps.

Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Andrew Johnson Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

 

[bripat9643]

A few were.

Most were pardoned. Like I said - we were nice chaps.

Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Andrew Johnson Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War

Name one person convicted of treason and hung.