The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[JakeStarkey]

A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter. The USA won that trial. Nothing else matters.

in a " nation of laws" are you saying YOUR CONstitution is of no relevance,JAKE?

Those are your silly words, not mine. James, you lost, it's over. Tough to be you.

 

[James Everett]

No, those are your meaningless words, James. Your comparison is false logic. In American law, the CSA never existed. In fact, the CSA was obliterated in war. In history, outlier reasoning, such as yours, is interesting for about three minutes.

Under what law did the CSA not exist Jake? Please cite that "American law".
JAKE, don't just post what you have heard, post only facts. Now please cite that law. A war was fought with the CSA, a government did prosecute a defensive war against the I.S. Invasion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are your meaningless words, James.

I don't parse your nonsense.

The CSA did not exist under American law. Since you are insisting, why don't you show us, since it is your affirmation.

 

[James Everett]

A 'trial by arms' resulted from the bombardment on Ft Sumter. The USA won that trial. Nothing else matters.

in a " nation of laws" are you saying YOUR CONstitution is of no relevance,JAKE?

Those are your silly words, not mine. James, you lost, it's over. Tough to be you.

JAKE,
The fight for freedom is never over. Do you know how long England occupied Ireland before the occupation ofIreland ended? Ireland lost many times, however, Ireland has regained its sovereignty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another false comparison.

 

[James Everett]

Those are your meaningless words, James.

I don't parse your nonsense.

The CSA did not exist under American law. Since you are insisting, why don't you show us, since it is your affirmation.

JAKE,
You made the foolish statement that there exists an American law that states that our CSA never existed, it is now up to you to cite that law.
Don't post without thinking first, otherwise you will continue to make a fool of yourself. It best to be silent and learn, rather than post where your knowledge is only topical at best.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, there is no CSA today, there was no lawful CSA back in the day, thus all your pontifications are rather silly. What is nice is that you types today are harmless.

 

[James Everett]

Another false comparison.

A true comparison of occupation.

 

[James Everett]

James, there is no CSA today, there was no lawful CSA back in the day, thus all your pontifications are rather silly. What is nice is that you types today are harmless.

Again JAKE, cite that law. The U.S. Held no jurisdiction to make a law, nor did one exist. It all comes down to municipal jurisdiction, read the several cases prior to secession wherein YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion that the U.S. Never held municiple jurisdiction in a State and such would be repugnant with YOUR CONstitution. You may begin with pollards lesses v hagan 1840, then I will direct you to another.

 

[James Everett]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

No. The question was settled by the Civil War

A question is never settled by violence or disregard of law.

 

[James Everett]

The question was settled at the Constitutional Convention.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law Schoo

The addition of the tenth amendment was actually added to YOUR CONstitution, which became actual law, the New York discussion did not.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered several opinions concerning municipal jurisdiction, and that the U.S. (The States in union) never held municipal jurisdiction in a State once formed. PollardsLessees v Hagan 1840 to cite one.

 

[James Everett]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another false comparison.

A true comparison of occupation.

Nope.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, there is no CSA today, there was no lawful CSA back in the day, thus all your pontifications are rather silly. What is nice is that you types today are harmless.

Again JAKE, cite that law. The U.S. Held no jurisdiction to make a law, nor did one exist. It all comes down to municipal jurisdiction, read the several cases prior to secession wherein YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion that the U.S. Never held municiple jurisdiction in a State and such would be repugnant with YOUR CONstitution. You may begin with pollards lesses v hagan 1840, then I will direct you to another.

You clearly do not know about what you are talking, but you are harmless, so that is fine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.

The citizen has always held a dual federal and state citizenship. The citizens of the US used the states as their agents to ratify the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is fun to watch James run around in circles.

 

[James Everett]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.

I must apologize as in my haste I forgot to cite the opinion rendered by YOUR SCOTUS.....United States v Bevans

 

[James Everett]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.

The citizen has always held a dual federal and state citizenship. The citizens of the US used the states as their agents to ratify the Constitution.

So, JAKE,
You are in opposition to James Madison?
He stated I his letter to Mr. Everett that it was the people of the States not the State govt's who ratified YOUR CONstitution. Who should I believe, you or James Madison? "We the people" ?????

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go back and read what I wrote, then compare it to Madison's comments, and show where I am opposed to what he wrote.

 

[James Everett]

A state is free to secede if they wish.

They just have to do it Constitutionally, the way they came in.

With the consent of the other states and the Congress.

No, the tenth reserves to each State individually the authority to exercise any power not delegated by it to the United States, meaning the States in union collectively. No power was delegated to the collective, (the United States) to prevent a State from exercising that retained authority. Hence, the power is not within the collective to prevent. Say you knock at my door and ask to enter and my wife and I agree to allow you entrance. Next we offer you coffee and lunch, must you now have our permission to leave? Or can we force you to stay until we say you may leave? Such is abduction in logic.