Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.
I just proved there is, dumbass.
Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
James Madison: "It crushes 'nullification' and must hasten the abandonment of 'Secession.'"
Doesn't get more clear than that. Madison neither believed nullification nor secession were legal.
And as you said, gipper, "James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution."
Irrefutable.
Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.
I just proved there is, dumbass.
Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
Dumbass, it was the North that invaded peacefully seceding states. Read a book sometime.Why would anyone argue about the right of secession of states that had so clearly violated the rights of blacks and only had their treasonous hissy fit because they feared the end of slavery?
It would be like arguing if Germany had the legal right to invade Poland it would have been ok.
James Madison: "It crushes 'nullification' and must hasten the abandonment of 'Secession.'"
Doesn't get more clear than that. Madison neither believed nullification nor secession were legal.
And as you said, gipper, "James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution."
Irrefutable.
While I am not in favor of un-agreed upon departure....just what is Madison referencing.....A Speech ?
"I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified; but I do not admit that under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State Government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the General Government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.
It takes a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics to paint the North as the good guys in the War of Northern Aggression. They built every ship that carried slaves on the international trade route and profited massively from the slave trade. They passed draconian laws to ensure fleeing slaves could not settle and find work. They elected Herr Lincoln Uber Alles because he promised repeatedly not to end slavery. And then they launched an illegal invasion not to end slavery but to return the country to the status quo.Dumbass, it was the North that invaded peacefully seceding states. Read a book sometime.Why would anyone argue about the right of secession of states that had so clearly violated the rights of blacks and only had their treasonous hissy fit because they feared the end of slavery?
It would be like arguing if Germany had the legal right to invade Poland it would have been ok.
It takes a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics to paint the South as the good guys in the civil war. They started a war over their right to own slaves. They tried repeatedly to spread slavery west in an attempt to maintain their power over people. When the north finally even came close to gaining power they started a war.
The rights given to us by our creator won and the slave owning south lost. God be praised!
Let Ginsberg hold up her blatherings in the face of a 50 caliber....
Give it the fuck up. Your democrat heroes tried and started a war and lost like the traitors they were. Get the fuck over it you inbred retardHere it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:
Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books
First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.
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.
Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”
Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?
Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”
It takes a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics to paint the North as the good guys in the War of Northern Aggression. They built every ship that carried slaves on the international trade route and profited massively from the slave trade. They passed draconian laws to ensure fleeing slaves could not settle and find work. They elected Herr Lincoln Uber Alles because he promised repeatedly not to end slavery. And then they launched an illegal invasion not to end slavery but to return the country to the status quo.Dumbass, it was the North that invaded peacefully seceding states. Read a book sometime.Why would anyone argue about the right of secession of states that had so clearly violated the rights of blacks and only had their treasonous hissy fit because they feared the end of slavery?
It would be like arguing if Germany had the legal right to invade Poland it would have been ok.
It takes a tremendous amount of mental gymnastics to paint the South as the good guys in the civil war. They started a war over their right to own slaves. They tried repeatedly to spread slavery west in an attempt to maintain their power over people. When the north finally even came close to gaining power they started a war.
The rights given to us by our creator won and the slave owning south lost. God be praised!
You're an idiot for championing the "virtue" of the North, a brainless, uneducated moron.
You are an idiot if you think Madison thought secession was ILLEGAL.He is in no way saying secession is legal. He is saying using force against a state is impractical. He also states he hoped such a system would be framed such that violence against a state would be unnecessary.Who is an idiot?If you think Madison was saying secession is legal, then you are an idiot.Okay Jake I have tried to be patient in the hopes that you could complete your task without further instruction. You have proven incapable. So, here is an example for you.
James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution. This is his statement on secession during the 1787 constitutional convention in which a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state:
"A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
See how easy that was Jake. Now its your turn.
Here is the entire context. I will bold the parts you conveniently left out:
Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.
He clearly is stating it is not, which is why I posted it.
That in no way is saying secession is legal. You are a fool for interpreting it that way.
James Madison is my favorite Founder. I am very familiar with his writing and thought process.
..According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.”
Professor H Newcomb Morse - - just another states rights charlatan ...
those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.
.
Nothing but slander and ad hominems. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the good professor, do you have anything to counter his arguments?
I didn't think so.
You're a typical bootlicking Lincoln cult member.
Nothing but slander and ad hominems.
