Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[-S-]

..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede...

Can you, honestly, quote me on that? Because I think you have me confused with someone else. All I've ever said is that slavery and the Confederacy are ingrained into each other. I don't believe I ever said anything about a person who supports the right to secede also supports slavery.

You asked, you shall receive. Here is where you said exactly that. You may now proceed to not comprehend what you said, you never do

So you only believe the south had the right to secede? You don't support the Confederacy's cause over the Union's cause?

Because the Confederacy's cause was based in large part on slavery. I'm gonna assume you support the Union over the Confederacy.. unless you actually don't have a problem with slavery..

You are, once again, confused. In that post, I clearly draw the line between believing in a state's "right to secede" and believing in the "causes" the Confederacy fought for.

Further more, If you look at the context of my posts with Cecille, I was merely trying to determine if she was on the same page as Britpat (believing both in the right of the states to secede AND believing the cause they fought for was "American").

Is that really the best you can do, man? I expected more from you in this. It seems I agree with you on some of the stuff you say, so it's not like you lack the capabilities of rational thought. Did you think I wouldn't notice what you tried to do here?

Kaz, Kaz, Kaz...

 

[kaz]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

 

[kaz]

They believed in the rights of the states to put others into bondage

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

Strawman

I don't think that word means what you think it does

Let's see, strawman, something you make up and put in someone else's mouth and attack it as if they had said it.

Nope, means exactly what I think it does

 

[bripat9643]

Tariff's?
Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations — the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white “sundown towns” and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting — “anything but slavery” explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure,” The Washington Post reported.

These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

Lincoln cult propaganda. Quoting some leftwing drone's opinion proves nothing.

 

[kaz]

..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede...

Can you, honestly, quote me on that? Because I think you have me confused with someone else. All I've ever said is that slavery and the Confederacy are ingrained into each other. I don't believe I ever said anything about a person who supports the right to secede also supports slavery.

You asked, you shall receive. Here is where you said exactly that. You may now proceed to not comprehend what you said, you never do

So you only believe the south had the right to secede? You don't support the Confederacy's cause over the Union's cause?

Because the Confederacy's cause was based in large part on slavery. I'm gonna assume you support the Union over the Confederacy.. unless you actually don't have a problem with slavery..

You are, once again, confused. In that post, I clearly draw the line between believing in a state's "right to secede" and believing in the "causes" the Confederacy fought for.

Further more, If you look at the context of my posts with Cecille, I was merely trying to determine if she was on the same page as Britpat (believing both in the right of the states to secede AND believing the cause they fought for was "American").

Is that really the best you can do, man? I expected more from you in this. It seems I agree with you on some of the stuff you say, so it's not like you lack the capabilities of rational thought. Did you think I wouldn't notice what you tried to do here?

Kaz, Kaz, Kaz...

If bripat had not repeatedly said he reports the right to secede, not slavery and why they did, you could have an argument. But that you keep endlessly trying to stick him with that strawman the left keeps doing shows your agenda is clear with sticking him with equating supporting the right to secede with the reasons they did it

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

 

[-S-]

..You keep saying that if WE support the right to secession, then WE support why the confederacy wanted to secede...

Can you, honestly, quote me on that? Because I think you have me confused with someone else. All I've ever said is that slavery and the Confederacy are ingrained into each other. I don't believe I ever said anything about a person who supports the right to secede also supports slavery.

You asked, you shall receive. Here is where you said exactly that. You may now proceed to not comprehend what you said, you never do

So you only believe the south had the right to secede? You don't support the Confederacy's cause over the Union's cause?

Because the Confederacy's cause was based in large part on slavery. I'm gonna assume you support the Union over the Confederacy.. unless you actually don't have a problem with slavery..

You are, once again, confused. In that post, I clearly draw the line between believing in a state's "right to secede" and believing in the "causes" the Confederacy fought for.

Further more, If you look at the context of my posts with Cecille, I was merely trying to determine if she was on the same page as Britpat (believing both in the right of the states to secede AND believing the cause they fought for was "American").

Is that really the best you can do, man? I expected more from you in this. It seems I agree with you on some of the stuff you say, so it's not like you lack the capabilities of rational thought. Did you think I wouldn't notice what you tried to do here?

Kaz, Kaz, Kaz...

If bripat had not repeatedly said he reports the right to secede, not slavery and why they did, you could have an argument. But that you keep endlessly trying to stick him with that strawman the left keeps doing shows your agenda is clear with sticking him with equating supporting the right to secede with the reasons they did it

That still doesn't address the issue of you saying I purported that a person who supports secession automatically supports slavery. The quote you provided of mine does not show that whatsoever, even when looked at isolated. I draw a clear line between the two stances. So that false claim is on you, Kaz.

And whether Bripat 'repeatedly' says that or not now, the fact still remains the Bripat did at one point state that there was nothing more American than what the Confederacy fought for. Skylar is a witness to that, because I recall we both hit him on that pretty hard. He's an unprincipled flip flopper and I take no prisoners with cowards like him. Back him up if you feel you must, but at least know his record first.

 

[OKTexas]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL! Now there is no greater love affair than the Left's adoration for all things ISLAM.

With the OP being no exception... how cool is it that somewhere in Islam slaves are being taken, sold and beaten, even as we speak.

LMAO... and here she is crying about Slavery common to two centuries ago.

Your post makes absolutely no sense

 

[rightwinger]

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

Strawman

I don't think that word means what you think it does

Let's see, strawman, something you make up and put in someone else's mouth and attack it as if they had said it.

Nope, means exactly what I think it does

I don't think it means what you think it does

The South seceded to preserve the right to maintain slavery. That is in no way a Strawman.....it is what is known as a historical fact

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

That's a direct quote from Libertarian David Gordon's book 'Session, State and Liberty'. Do you guys ever quote anyone but libertarians? The claim 'thus both major poligical parties believed in the inviolable state's rights of nullification and secession' is David Gordon.

Not Madison. And Not Jefferson. Neither advocated the right to secede. Nor did the Kentucky nor the Virginia Resolution even MENTION secession, let alone state it was a right under the constitution. Gordon straight up invented that.

Madison EXPLICITLY rejected the idea of secession, insisting that "Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" , this in direct response to NY's attempt to put in a seceession clause into their ratification of the US constitution.

You can't get much clearer than "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever"

Worse for you, Madison EXPLICITLY rejects the right to secede again, this time in reference to the nullification crisis.

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy

March 15, 1833
James Madison

There's no angle in which your claims work. You're demonstrating the profound difference between understanding the source material, and mechanically apeing whatever you were told to think by whatever libertarian historian does your thinking for you.

Bottom line, there is no constitutional right to secede. The issue was raised during the ratification of the Constitution and soundly rejected. You're spouting anti-federalist rhetoric forgetting that the anti-federalists lost.

 

[-S-]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it. You have nothing to contribute.

 

[rightwinger]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

It's the same claim of states rights that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A state's right to segregate.

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

 

[Skylar]

LOL! Now there is no greater love affair than the Left's adoration for all things ISLAM.

With the OP being no exception... how cool is it that somewhere in Islam slaves are being taken, sold and beaten, even as we speak.

LMAO... and here she is crying about Slavery common to two centuries ago.

Your post makes absolutely no sense

This is the same soul that insisted he supports sending the negro back to their native land in the coming civil war.

So you're already mining a vein of pure batshit by even responding to keyes.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I only think in stereotypes

So, because you saw a couple people say something you are wondering if that's how all "conservatives" think. well just wow

the not so Modern liberal, Bill Maher called a Republican woman candidate a cxxt. so I assume that is that how all liberals think of women in this country

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and in 1798....Jefferson and Madison were in the same party: The Democratic Republican party. And had been since 1791. So I have no idea what Gordon is talking about with 'both political parties' by citing two guys from the same party.

 

[Skylar]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

Strawman, answer to RW's strawman. Once again, you are arguing the lie that the support is for slavery when it's for the right to secede. You are not a bright man. It's impressive that you and RW actually can amplify the stupid when you get together though

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in 1824. came to the same conclusion;

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

And since the Supreme Court creates binding precedent upon South Carolina in 1824, this ruling was authoritative.

 

[bripat9643]

Hard to believe today's conservatives support slavery

Excuse me....A STATES right to have slavery

You mean the right to secede to preserve slavery?

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in 1824. came to the same conclusion;

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

And since the Supreme Court creates binding precedent upon South Carolina in 1824, this ruling was authoritative.

That decision doesn't say the states lost their right to secede. All it says is that the nature of their relationship with the federal government changed after the Constitution was ratified.

It's meaningless.

 

[Skylar]

They can't look at it the way sane people do. By admitting that it was wrong for the south to try to preserve slavery, they would be admitting that you can't always trust states to make smart, constitutional decisions, which in turn would be admitting that the "states rights/small government" dogma they subscribe to is ineffective.

It's easier to just come off as incompetent/confused in a few online debates then answer sanely and have your entire ideology shredded before your eyes.

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

A state has no Constitutional right to secede. Once you make a stew we call the United States (note the capital letters) there is no capability to return to the original ingredients

The Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in 1824. came to the same conclusion;

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

And since the Supreme Court creates binding precedent upon South Carolina in 1824, this ruling was authoritative.

That decision doesn't say the states lost their right to secede. All it says is that the nature of their relationship with the federal government changed after the Constitution was ratified.

It's meaningless.

That would be James Madison, who explicitly rejected idea of sucession when it was raised during the constitutional ratification process. The 1824 case obliterates the idea that each state remained an individual sovereign after ratifying the constitution.

States didn't have a right to secede. And they didn't remain sovereigns after ratifying the constitution. Negating both of your arguments.

Oh, and the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions never even MENTION secession. Let alone support it. It helps if you actually read the resolutions you claim to be quoting. Rather than mindlessly repeating whatever David Gordon tells you to think.