Was seccession illegal?

[OKTexas]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

I am for states rights. I dont say that the fed should have all the power. They shouldnt have most of the power, but in those things ( Foreign Relations, infrastructure, defence and commerce) that the constitution does give the fed power they must trump the states. Any social programs are the states buiseness. This does not retract from the importance of the union.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So what powers do the feds have concerning infrastructure and commerce, please be very specific.

 

[bripat9643]

Who said anything about apply? You said the Senate decides. Now you're adding other conditions..

You are a retard but thanks for proving it once again.

In other words, you know what you posted was is stupid and wrong.

Actual you keep confirming just how amazingly stupid you are. The Senate can not on its own just annex territory, the territory must ask to join the Union just as a State must ask to leave the Union. Dumb ass.

There's no text in the Constitution that says a state must ask permission to leave, but there is text that says it must ask permission to join, so your theory is absurd on its face.

Ratification binds the state to the laws of the Constitution. By ratifying the Constitution, a state agrees that the Constitution and the federal government that stems from it is the supreme law of the land.

Until the state secedes, moron. Again, there is no federal law saying a state cannot secede. Congress has never passed such a law, so what is this nonexistent law "supreme" to? Furthermore, the supremacy clause only applies so long as a state is in the union. The minute a state secedes, the supremacy clause is null an void.

Your argument is the result of desperation by those who know they haven't got a single thing to support their totalitarian legal theories.

 

[bripat9643]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Their intent was not to surrender all State sovereignty to an all powerful federal government. Like Madison said, the powers of the federal government are few and defined, the powers of the States are vast. With the complicity of the federal courts the federal government has exceeded all original intent.

Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

We have about 3 generations who truly believe the myth that our federal government is the ultimate authority in this country, and that the federal courts are MEANT to write law by which we must all abide.

It's a complete and total myth, that has been taught by our disgusting progressive "free press" and the insane academics that are paid by communists to make our children stupid and crazed.

The division of powers is clear in the constitution. How our founders decided upon said is clear in the federalist/anti federalist papers and the minutes of the constitutional convention. You will find that our founders were more interested in a single nation where federal policies were innacted by congress, executed by the executive and checked by the court. The states had total control of internal policies with the exception of interstate commerce, which was dominion granted the fed by the founders who were reps of the states. Its a balanced unity.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What is the relevance of that blather?

 

[bripat9643]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

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.

So you're saiying Grant thought all the foundational principles contained in the Declaration Of Independence were just so much bullshit. That a free people have no right to govern themselves or to sever bonds that they find untenable.

The Declaration Of Independence was written by the Continental Congress to King George 3rd, not to you, to me, or to anybody else.

The Declaration Of Independence is NOT the U.S. Constitution.

Q.E.D.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So war is a legal precedent? When did that legal principle get invented?

 

[bripat9643]

[
Our federal government was defined by our intent to keep it small, and UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the people, and their local governments.

.

Nonsense. If that were true, the founders would have stayed under the Articles of Confederation.

Bullshit. However, adopting the Constitution was a grave error.

 

[Pepperjuice]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

So you're saiying Grant thought all the foundational principles contained in the Declaration Of Independence were just so much bullshit. That a free people have no right to govern themselves or to sever bonds that they find untenable.

The Declaration Of Independence was written by the Continental Congress to King George 3rd, not to you, to me, or to anybody else.

The Declaration Of Independence is NOT the U.S. Constitution.

Q.E.D.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So war is a legal precedent? When did that legal principle get invented?

Since the first tribal fight. If it is won in war you keep it. Not right just is.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

The Declaration Of Independence was written by the Continental Congress to King George 3rd, not to you, to me, or to anybody else.

The Declaration Of Independence is NOT the U.S. Constitution.

Q.E.D.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So war is a legal precedent? When did that legal principle get invented?

Since the first tribal fight. If it is won in war you keep it. Not right just is.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That's the law of the jungle, not justice or any kind of formal legal principle.

 

[Pepperjuice]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

it is the declaration that establishes the tenets upon which the constitution sits.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So war is a legal precedent? When did that legal principle get invented?

Since the first tribal fight. If it is won in war you keep it. Not right just is.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That's the law of the jungle, not justice or any kind of formal legal principle.

Yeah. Call it what ever. The north fought to keep the south in the union. As you have said, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost because the south was living in a fantasy of sovereignty. Now you say: sure succession is fine. But dude, its not man. You think it could happen cheaply? Blood free? Think again. I know nothing of your conspiracy stuff so i will read into it. But the union must stand.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

Though one may be able to make a case for the legality of succession before the civil war, the idea that after a war was faught and won (i would call that significant legal presidence) it would still be legal is laughable. Also, to make the argument pre war would still require completely ignoring the intent of the founders in creating the union. Read the federalist and anti federalist papers to really get a feel for the arguements of the day.

Since the Declaration predates the Constitution it does NOT have any effect of Federal law.

It is just a Dear John letter to the King.

To be perfectly technical it is a Masonic Charge Sheet accusing the King of dereliction and expelling him from Freemasonry.

You have heard about Freemasonry, no?

Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and John Paul Jones were all Freemasons. As was King George 3rd.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So war is a legal precedent? When did that legal principle get invented?

Since the first tribal fight. If it is won in war you keep it. Not right just is.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That's the law of the jungle, not justice or any kind of formal legal principle.

Yeah. Call it what ever. The north fought to keep the south in the union. As you have said, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost because the south was living in a fantasy of sovereignty. Now you say: sure succession is fine. But dude, its not man. You think it could happen cheaply? Blood free? Think again. I know nothing of your conspiracy stuff so i will read into it. But the union must stand.

Sent from my LGMS550 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Yes, it could have been totally blood free. All that was required if for the tyrant Lincoln to refrain from sending in an army and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Your post is nothing but a great big "nuh uhn." it contains no facts or logic that support your case.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union.

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union.

That's in the articles of confederation, which are no longer in force. Furthermore, it has no legal significance. It's propaganda, and nothing more.

 

[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?

houghts?

My thought is that whether it was legal or not is a moot point now as it was in the 1860s and afterwards. The Union was not of a mind to let the succession stand, and it had the will and wherewithal to act on that mindset and prevail.

Ikr? Why does anyone discuss history? Like, how pathetic is that?

 

[Kondor3]

.
Yes, California can leave.

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

"Let the erring Fruit Loops depart in peace..."

 

[TNHarley]

After 20 pages not one argument against the OP has been based on law. We win

 

[yiostheoy]

After 20 pages not one argument against the OP has been based on law. We win

Bull Sh!t.

 

[12icer]

Actually you just didn't follow the actual line from the articles of confederation to the constitution to the supreme court case that ruled secession UNCONSTITUTIONAL on the preamble statement of In order to form a more PERFECT UNION as a throwback to the Articles of Confederation statement of an indissoluble union. The Articles of Confederation allowed the states secession in another clause with some standards set for the action. Historical action and revision are the things that give the answers you ask for if you Know anything about history. The rewritten liberal indoctrination history is lacking even the most remote basis of truthful parallels to go by. PS I guess just look up majority opinion in Texas VS White for your answer.

 

[TNHarley]

Principle of legality

 

[TNHarley]

After 20 pages not one argument against the OP has been based on law. We win

Bull Sh!t.

Link? Perhaps I missed it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Link? Perhaps I missed it.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[TNHarley]

Link? Perhaps I missed it.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

I appreciate the humor but eventually you should admit defeat