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.
Please point out where it says that states can secede. It doesn't. So we rely on Supreme Court precedent. Which in this case decides they can't.You haven't defended anything. All you have done is say Samuel Chase several times and assert the Preamble forbids peaceful secession.
If you don't know the Constitution, how do you know Samuel P. Chase got it right?
I asked you specifically to defend your case per the Constitution not the SCOTUS. You can't do it because you don't know what you are talking about.
Admit you can't defend your position per the Constitution but still believe what you do. That would be honest at least.
You come in the thread and mock people and don't have the first clue what you are talking about, when it comes to the Constitution. All you have are talking points, deflection, and Google search.
It should bother you that you are debating in such a fashion. It should inspire you to research what exactly you believe and why per the Constitution. Instead, you tell me my beliefs are bizarre, while you patiently wait for me to take some detour were you feel more comfortable with the debate scenery. Not going to happen.
Up down. Up down.
That's not how the Constitution works, as per the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The states have those powers not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. Secession is not denied to the states.
Please point out where it says that states can secede. It doesn't. So we rely on Supreme Court precedent. Which in this case decides they can't.
Up down. Up down.
That's not how the Constitution works, as per the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The states have those powers not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. Secession is not denied to the states.
You are arguing from silence. I don't see the word "secession" in there. Do you?
And you are a fine one to say "the constitution doesn't work that way." The constitution works based on authoritative opinions issued by courts, the most authoritative being the Supreme COurt. And they rule the states cannot secede.
Up down. Up down.
Here you go:
Texas v. White
(Please note the citation of Luther v Borden, 7 Howard 42, in the vital Article 4 analysis)
There is an argument to make here for a permanent union, and the Court does a passable job of it, but they have to reach too far to make the links between the Luther right of the Federalis to establish and meddle in State governemnt and their holding. Go back to the beginning and remember the timing and purpose for the case, then read it again through the proper prism. There's at least one broken link in that chain.
That's not how the Constitution works, as per the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The states have those powers not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. Secession is not denied to the states.
You are arguing from silence. I don't see the word "secession" in there. Do you?
And you are a fine one to say "the constitution doesn't work that way." The constitution works based on authoritative opinions issued by courts, the most authoritative being the Supreme COurt. And they rule the states cannot secede.
Up down. Up down.
No, secession is not in there. That's why the states have the right to do so. Let me quote the 10th Amendment for you again.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You are arguing from silence. I don't see the word "secession" in there. Do you?
And you are a fine one to say "the constitution doesn't work that way." The constitution works based on authoritative opinions issued by courts, the most authoritative being the Supreme COurt. And they rule the states cannot secede.
Up down. Up down.
No, secession is not in there. That's why the states have the right to do so. Let me quote the 10th Amendment for you again.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I'm still not seeing the word "secession" here. Maybe it's written in the corner somewhere.
Justice Chase didn't see it either, and he certainly knew the 10thA.
Looks like you're failing again here.
The constitution strictly says that the federal government may only dictate to a state about what it can do when the constitution says they can about things that are prohibited to them. All other powers are reserved for the state and the last time I checked there is nothing in the constitution that says a state can't depart.
I don't think that states should leave but it is still a right that they have which makes the union a voluntary union of states that can leave and stay as they please. The civil war did not alter the constitution with new amendments forbidding each state from leaving. It only made the idea of leaving unthinkable because we know their would be a war where any state that wants to leave will be crushed by the US armed forces. This situation is not the path to freedom but to tyranny of the federal government because how can you say each state enjoys a status of being free if the federal government interferes with their own domestic affairs and forbids them from forming their own federation with other states or countries for that matter.
The OP is correct. Secession is a legitimate right of the states.
No, actually it isn't, per the Supreme Court: Texas vs White
Where's the constitutional amendment making it illegal?
The constitution strictly says that the federal government may only dictate to a state about what it can do when the constitution says they can about things that are prohibited to them. All other powers are reserved for the state and the last time I checked there is nothing in the constitution that says a state can't depart.
I don't think that states should leave but it is still a right that they have which makes the union a voluntary union of states that can leave and stay as they please. The civil war did not alter the constitution with new amendments forbidding each state from leaving. It only made the idea of leaving unthinkable because we know their would be a war where any state that wants to leave will be crushed by the US armed forces. This situation is not the path to freedom but to tyranny of the federal government because how can you say each state enjoys a status of being free if the federal government interferes with their own domestic affairs and forbids them from forming their own federation with other states or countries for that matter.
Except that at the point they join the Union, states surrender their sovereignty.
No, actually it isn't, per the Supreme Court: Texas vs White
Where's the constitutional amendment making it illegal?
There doesn't need to be an amendment. If you read the decision Rabbi referenced, since states surrender sovereignty upon entry into the Union, the Union cannot be dissolved unilaterally.
Here you go:
Texas v. White
(Please note the citation of Luther v Borden, 7 Howard 42, in the vital Article 4 analysis)
There is an argument to make here for a permanent union, and the Court does a passable job of it, but they have to reach too far to make the links between the Luther right of the Federalis to establish and meddle in State governemnt and their holding. Go back to the beginning and remember the timing and purpose for the case, then read it again through the proper prism. There's at least one broken link in that chain.
You can critique the reasoning all you want. Brown was a terrible decision in its logic, as was Roe.
But it is the law of the land.
Where's the constitutional amendment making it illegal?
There doesn't need to be an amendment. If you read the decision Rabbi referenced, since states surrender sovereignty upon entry into the Union, the Union cannot be dissolved unilaterally.
Yet no where does the Constitution say that.
There doesn't need to be an amendment. If you read the decision Rabbi referenced, since states surrender sovereignty upon entry into the Union, the Union cannot be dissolved unilaterally.
Yet no where does the Constitution say that.
Yes, it does.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis, Then a Senator from Mississippi, did not want the confederate states to secede from the union at the time that they did. He wanted to argue the case for secession before the supreme court - and find a peaceful resolution to the crisis. (Ironically, he was the only person executed at the end of the civil war).
The key to understanding the Texas vs. White decision is to look at the date : 1869. There is no way in hell that the supreme court was going to decide in favor of secession only 4 years after some half million American had died fighting a civil war over the issue of secession. Could you imagine if they had decided in favor of secession? The idea is laughable.
It's unfortunate that history played out the way it did. In fact, even if the the Civil war had not occured, if Jefferson Davis had successfully argued the case of succession, it STILL would have been the obligation of the Federal Government to invade and occupy the South due to the humanitarian mandate to abolish slavery - not to mention slavery's negative impact the economy of the north - as well as the impact of the southern states controling the Mississippi.
Weird how things worked out, but in fact, secession is a moot point. In isolation the argument may have it's merits, but it just ain't gonna happen - that's for sure.
Once some Southerner said to me:
"The South's gonna do it again"
So I replied:
"Oh good, that way we can kick your stupid asses all over again!"
Traitors deserve the cold steel.
Non-violent secession is not treason.
The supremacy clause already makes it impossible for to exit the Constitution's jurisdiction.
Who said anything about taking up arms? You do realize that without secession we would all be talking with a brittish accent.
Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis, Then a Senator from Mississippi, did not want the confederate states to secede from the union at the time that they did. He wanted to argue the case for secession before the supreme court - and find a peaceful resolution to the crisis. (Ironically, he was the only person executed at the end of the civil war).
The key to understanding the Texas vs. White decision is to look at the date : 1869. There is no way in hell that the supreme court was going to decide in favor of secession only 4 years after some half million American had died fighting a civil war over the issue of secession. Could you imagine if they had decided in favor of secession? The idea is laughable.
It's unfortunate that history played out the way it did. In fact, even if the the Civil war had not occured, if Jefferson Davis had successfully argued the case of succession, it STILL would have been the obligation of the Federal Government to invade and occupy the South due to the humanitarian mandate to abolish slavery - not to mention slavery's negative impact the economy of the north - as well as the impact of the southern states controling the Mississippi.
Weird how things worked out, but in fact, secession is a moot point. In isolation the argument may have it's merits, but it just ain't gonna happen - that's for sure.
Once some Southerner said to me:
"The South's gonna do it again"
So I replied:
"Oh good, that way we can kick your stupid asses all over again!"
