Was seccession illegal?

[TNHarley]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about 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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

 

[Fiero425]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

 

[TNHarley]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

Cali too lol

 

[TNHarley]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

 

[percysunshine]

.
Yes, California can leave.

A thousand divorce lawyers in the same room can at least agree to kill 998 of each other.

 

[Timmy]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

 

[EvilCat Breath]

California is stupid enough to think they can vote to leave.

 

[TNHarley]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

Why does that not make sense? The constitution doesn't give the federal government power of secession. Therefor, leaving it up to the states.
Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. But back then..

 

[yiostheoy]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about 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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

You need to read more TNHarley .

Get a copy of US Grant's memoirs and in the epilogue he tells you that states have no right to secede and that the Union has the right to preserve itself.

 

[yiostheoy]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

Why does that not make sense? The constitution doesn't give the federal government power of secession. Therefor, leaving it up to the states.
Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. But back then..

LIke I said, get a copy of Grant's memoirs and read it.

 

[yiostheoy]

California is stupid enough to think they can vote to leave.

It would not surprise me with all the dope that the California State Legislature and Gov. Moonbeam are always smoking that they would vote for such a thing.

Of course the SCOTUS would overrule them.

 

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

Well TNHarley you're obviously not too smart nor very well read but you are correct that I have read the right answer to your childish impertinent query, motorcycle boy.

 

[TNHarley]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about 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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

You need to read more TNHarley .

Get a copy of US Grant's memoirs and in the epilogue he tells you that states have no right to secede and that the Union has the right to preserve itself.

Well, honestly, I don't give a damn about his opinion. Neither does the law. I already know it was perfectly legal back then. But this is about the 10th.
Do you have any input?

 

[TNHarley]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

Well TNHarley you're obviously not too smart nor very well read but you are correct that I have read the right answer to your childish impertinent query, motorcycle boy.

How is discussing history childish? Childish is you going around and STFUing everything you see from 8 years ago.
What a stupid thing to say.

 

[yiostheoy]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

I would think Alaska and Texas are really happy now that RINO Trump is in charge at The White House and not Hillary.

Pelosi and Schumer have each been neutered and spayed for now as well.

Jeeze this is practically a GOP pipe dream for 2016 - 2018 at least.

 

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

Well TNHarley you're obviously not too smart nor very well read but you are correct that I have read the right answer to your childish impertinent query, motorcycle boy.

How is discussing history childish? Childish is you going around and STFUing everything you see from 8 years ago.
What a stupid thing to say.

Discussing history is not childish.

YOU are childish TNHarley .

You don't seem to read very much if at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The premise of the Constitution is that BY majority agreement things are done, requiring a majority of States to decide another State can leave the Union per the Supreme Court decision. A State does not have the sole power to determine it's status in the Union never has never will. The Constitution is clear on that as well as what type Government will be permitted to individual States with in the Union.

 

[TNHarley]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

Well TNHarley you're obviously not too smart nor very well read but you are correct that I have read the right answer to your childish impertinent query, motorcycle boy.

How is discussing history childish? Childish is you going around and STFUing everything you see from 8 years ago.
What a stupid thing to say.

Discussing history is not childish.

YOU are childish TNHarley .

You don't seem to read very much if at all.

If you are so well read, why cant you offer any substance to my OP? Are you at a loss for words?
If you are just going to troll, then leave. I thought I might could get some substance out of you.

 

[yiostheoy]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about 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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

You need to read more TNHarley .

Get a copy of US Grant's memoirs and in the epilogue he tells you that states have no right to secede and that the Union has the right to preserve itself.

Well, honestly, I don't give a damn about his opinion. Neither does the law. I already know it was perfectly legal back then. But this is about the 10th.
Do you have any input?

I need to start oven roasting my Holy Thursday Catholic dinner so I will get back to you later in the evening after Mass tonight.

It would turn on the language in the Constitution itself about ratification. That would be the first legal premise.

And since Lincoln did not wait for a SCOTUS ruling to begin his offensive at 1st Bull Run against the Rebels, I would say Grant's opinion has the weight of precedent for any modern SCOTUS review if one ever came up.

Lincoln has however set the precedent that a declaration of war would not be incumbent upon a POTUS defending the union against a rebel State, nor a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

Well TNHarley you're obviously not too smart nor very well read but you are correct that I have read the right answer to your childish impertinent query, motorcycle boy.

How is discussing history childish? Childish is you going around and STFUing everything you see from 8 years ago.
What a stupid thing to say.

Discussing history is not childish.

YOU are childish TNHarley .

You don't seem to read very much if at all.

If you are so well read, why cant you offer any substance to my OP? Are you at a loss for words?
If you are just going to troll, then leave. I thought I might could get some substance out of you.

I'm not all that well read -- certainly not as much as Neil Gorsuch.

But obviously more than you are TNHarley .