bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,163
- 47,312
- 2,180
No it doesn't, dumbass. Show me in international law where confiscating property within your borders is an act of war.
Really? First it was a rebellion. When the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of that secession they said the Constitution proved it illegal. The President has powers to quell rebellion.
"It was a rebellion?" Says who? Secession is one thing. Rebellion is another. The Supreme court stuffed with Lincoln appointed hacks ruled incorrectly. Their ruling is packed full of claims that are obviously not true.
2nd What do you mean "international Law". That' doesn't usurp the Constitution no matter how much people like you want to burn that piece of paper when it doesn't say what you wish it would.
International law determines what are acts of war and what aren't acts of war. Confiscating property within your own borders is not an act of war. Furthermore, SC didn't confiscate the property. They simply said that Union troops couldn't reside there.
3rd. Those states signed contracts signing over the land to the US in perpetuity. They took over dozens of forts, bases, weapons Cache's, federal banks and mints, and ships. Those that the Union did not surrender were bombed. How's that not reason for war? Someone takes a bunch of nuclear subs and carriers and takes over fort Knox and start bombing Fort Benning Ga until we surrender it a day later, I'd hope the president fought back.
They signed over their property rights. They retained their legal jurisdiction. That gives them the right to evict the troops of a foreign government. If someone is in my living room refuses to leave when I ask him, I have the right to get my Glock automatic and escort him to the door.