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.
Secession is illegal if it violates the constitution. Which it does as it strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.
I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.
Squirm, squirm, squirm.
The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.
And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.
Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.
James Madison
There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.
As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.
If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.
Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.
You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.
Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.
Secession is legal until proven illegal. Can you cite the law prohibiting secession?
Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.
I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.
Squirm, squirm, squirm.
The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.
And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.
Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.
James Madison
There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.
As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.
If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.
Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.
You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.
Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.
No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.
Yo, fast forward to Larry Elder, he will tell you about the "Real Constitution!!!"
"GTP"
View attachment 70352
The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.
And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.
Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.
James Madison
There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.
As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.
If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.
Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.
You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.
Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.
No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.
I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.
The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise.
There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue.
Enjoy the box.
Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?
Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?
Or did the confederate constitution contain a law forbidding states from seceding from the confederacy? I don't think so. Just as the US constitution contained no law forbidding states from leaving the union.
And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.
Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.
James Madison
There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.
As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.
If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.
Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.
You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.
Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.
No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.
I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.
The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise.
There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue.
Enjoy the box.
Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.
Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?
Or did the confederate constitution contain a law forbidding states from seceding from the confederacy? I don't think so. Just as the US constitution contained no law forbidding states from leaving the union.
If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.
Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.
You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.
Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.
No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.
I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.
The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise.
There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue.
Enjoy the box.
Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.
The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.
Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.
You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.
Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.
No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.
I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.
The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise.
There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue.
Enjoy the box.
Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.
The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.
What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?
No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.
I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.
The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise.
There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue.
Enjoy the box.
Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.
The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.
What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?
See post 42.
The U.S.A. Constitution!
Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.
I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.
The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise.
There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue.
Enjoy the box.
Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.
The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.
What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?
See post 42.
The U.S.A. Constitution!
Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.
Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?
Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.
The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.
What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?
See post 42.
The U.S.A. Constitution!
Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.
Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?
Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.
The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.
What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?
See post 42.
The U.S.A. Constitution!
Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.
Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?
Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.
And the constitutionally delegated power that the federal government would no longer have is...?
What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?
See post 42.
The U.S.A. Constitution!
Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.
Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?
Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.
And the constitutionally delegated power that the federal government would no longer have is...?
Laid out in post 42. Just like I told you last time.
Reading what you ask for. Its what's for dinner.
See post 42.
The U.S.A. Constitution!
Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.
Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?
Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.
And the constitutionally delegated power that the federal government would no longer have is...?
Laid out in post 42. Just like I told you last time.
Reading what you ask for. Its what's for dinner.
I have looked every time you reference that post. It doesn't say what power the united states would no longer have were a state to leave the union.
Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?
Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.
And the constitutionally delegated power that the federal government would no longer have is...?
Laid out in post 42. Just like I told you last time.
Reading what you ask for. Its what's for dinner.
I have looked every time you reference that post. It doesn't say what power the united states would no longer have were a state to leave the union.
No you haven't. Try again. This time looking for the phrase '____________ is a power delegated to the United States by the constitution'.
Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.
And the constitutionally delegated power that the federal government would no longer have is...?
Laid out in post 42. Just like I told you last time.
Reading what you ask for. Its what's for dinner.
I have looked every time you reference that post. It doesn't say what power the united states would no longer have were a state to leave the union.
No you haven't. Try again. This time looking for the phrase '____________ is a power delegated to the United States by the constitution'.
Hm, I see it now: "The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution."
I disagree with your claim. Can you cite the supporting language in the constitution?
