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

[HappyJoy]

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Secession is not rebellion, moron. It's illegal for the federal government to invade any of the states of the Union. It says so right in the Constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....

It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Seceding states were not U.S. territory rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

 

[bripat9643]

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Secession is not rebellion, moron. It's illegal for the federal government to invade any of the states of the Union. It says so right in the Constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.

No one in this forum has managed to prove it so far.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

He sounds just like the abusive husband who said he had to kill his wife because she said she was leaving.

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Secession is not rebellion, moron. It's illegal for the federal government to invade any of the states of the Union. It says so right in the Constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.

Do you Leftwats think the Constitution came down from Mt. Olympus? The states created the Constitution which is why it lacks the power to allow or disallow secession. It's an original power not unlike the power to ratify the Constitution to begin with. But what the Constitution does specify is that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This too militates against your argument because even the Constitution alludes to the original source of authority, the states. In fact, the states could collude to abolish the Constitution altogether if it suits their fancy.

 

[HappyJoy]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

 

[HappyJoy]

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Secession is not rebellion, moron. It's illegal for the federal government to invade any of the states of the Union. It says so right in the Constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.

Do you Leftwats think the Constitution came down from Mt. Olympus? The states created the Constitution which is why it lacks the power to allow or disallow secession. It's an original power not unlike the power to ratify the Constitution to begin with. But what the Constitution does specify is that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This too militates against your argument because even the Constitution alludes to the original source of authority, the states. In fact, the states could collude to abolish the Constitution altogether if it suits their fancy.

Well...no.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The Supreme Court derives its powers from the Constitution and the Constitution derives its power from the states rendering ludicrous the notion that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell states whether they can or cannot secede.

 

[Skylar]

No I sound like a murderer? Hey eat me trailer trash.

Defending Lincoln's illegal war certainly demonstrates a casual disregard for human life.

Neither putting down a rebellion nor defending US territory is 'illegal'. Rendering the entire premise of your argument veritable gibberish.

Secession is not rebellion, moron. It's illegal for the federal government to invade any of the states of the Union. It says so right in the Constitution.

Secession is unconstitutional.

No one in this forum has managed to prove it so far.

There's no mention of it anywhere in the COnstitution. ANd your own source on the topic, James Madison.....made it ludicrously clear that no such right to secede existed. That the constitution was adopted 'in toto and forever'. With the USSC finding that the State's status as sovereigns was changed when they joined together under the Constitution. This a generation BEFORE secession attempts.

But you bizarrely ignored your own source on the very topic you cited him on. And straight up ignored the Supreme Court.

Demonstrating elegantly that there's nothing you won't ignore to cling to what you want to believe. You'll even ignore your own sources.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate? What do you suppose are the odds that they would rule Lincoln's invasion of Virginia was unconstitutional?

 

[HappyJoy]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

 

[Skylar]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The Supreme Court derives its powers from the Constitution and the Constitution derives its power from the states rendering ludicrous the notion that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell states whether they can or cannot secede.

Actually the constitution derives its authority from the people. You can tell, as the first three words of the Constitution are 'We the People'. Killing your argument.

And the authority of the States was weiled by the States. Not A State. A fact you keep trying to gloss over. You'll mention the amendment process controlled by the States. But conveniently forget that no state can create an amendment and pass it all by itself. And South Carolina claimed to secede unilaterally.

Once the States joined the union they were no longer individual sovereigns. They shared jurisdiction with the Federal government, and they required the agreement of 3/4 of the other States to do what they were able to do on their own as sovereigns. They become one voice among many, part of a republic. They lacked the authority to make changes to the Republic without the Republic's super-super majority agreement.

Which not one of the Southern States had.

 

[Skylar]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

 

[there4eyeM]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

...and the Court doubtless got this from the 'perpetual Union' part of the origin arrangement creating the United States.

 

[HappyJoy]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

 

[there4eyeM]

A marriage, for example, is a legal union. It can be ended if both parties agree. If that is not the case, authorities are addressed to adjudicate. If one party becomes violent, he/she can be arrested. One of them declaring that the other must leave the house does not mean the other must leave the house. If one shoots at the other to try to make him/her leave, consequences can be grave.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

 

[HappyJoy]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

 

[bripat9643]

A marriage, for example, is a legal union. It can be ended if both parties agree. If that is not the case, authorities are addressed to adjudicate. If one party becomes violent, he/she can be arrested. One of them declaring that the other must leave the house does not mean the other must leave the house. If one shoots at the other to try to make him/her leave, consequences can be grave.

Hmmmm, wrong. Both parties don't have to agree. If you refuse to consent to a divorce, then a judge will make that decision for you. You can't force someone to remain married to you.

That isn't exactly an example that supports your case, is it?