Was seccession illegal?

[danielpalos]

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

True. That power to "dispose" is in the second clause of article 4 section 3

About federal constructs. States are sovereign entities. We do not have a unitary form of federal government; much to the consternation of the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

The power to admit is not the power to exclude. You are "reading too much into it".

Um, if it is your job to choose which states to ADMIT, then you are by definition also, choosing which states to NOT admit, or exclude.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

Pointing out that the power to ADMIT, is also the power to NOT admit is hardly quibbling.

Not admitting is not the same as expulsion.

 

[Correll]

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

The power to admit is not the power to exclude. You are "reading too much into it".

Um, if it is your job to choose which states to ADMIT, then you are by definition also, choosing which states to NOT admit, or exclude.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

Pointing out that the power to ADMIT, is also the power to NOT admit is hardly quibbling.

Not admitting is not the same as expulsion.

Never said it was.

 

[danielpalos]

The power to admit is not the power to exclude. You are "reading too much into it".

Um, if it is your job to choose which states to ADMIT, then you are by definition also, choosing which states to NOT admit, or exclude.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

Pointing out that the power to ADMIT, is also the power to NOT admit is hardly quibbling.

Not admitting is not the same as expulsion.

Never said it was.

That is the position of the radical right.

 

[radical right]

Special pleading is still a fallacy. Why not include the entire article and section.

Article 4

Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of
the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

 

[bripat9643]

Special pleading is still a fallacy. Why not include the entire article and section.

Article 4

Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of
the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Nothing in there about secession.

FAIL!

 

[Correll]

Um, if it is your job to choose which states to ADMIT, then you are by definition also, choosing which states to NOT admit, or exclude.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

Pointing out that the power to ADMIT, is also the power to NOT admit is hardly quibbling.

Not admitting is not the same as expulsion.

Never said it was.

That is the position of the radical right.

I've never seen that claim made by anyone.

 

[radical right]

WIll somebody take a stab at translating what congress has the power to dispose of?

A 4, S 3 clause 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States;

 

[bripat9643]

WIll somebody take a stab at translating what congress has the power to dispose of?

A 4, S 3 clause 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States;

It can dispose of territory and property. States are not territories and they are not property.

 

[Correll]

WIll somebody take a stab at translating what congress has the power to dispose of?

A 4, S 3 clause 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States;

That's very vague to claim that it spells out that joining in the Union was a one way deal under pain of WAR.

 

[radical right]

It can dispose of territory and property. States are not territories and they are not property.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;

 

[bripat9643]

It can dispose of territory and property. States are not territories and they are not property.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;

States are not owned by the federal government, dumbass. It can own property in a state, just like any other American, but it doesn't own the state.

 

[my2¢]

I don't see secession as illegal, but watch out whenever you attack and take over federal property such as John Brown and the Harpers Ferry federal armory and as the South did with Fort Sumter.

 

[radical right]

States are not owned by the federal government, dumbass. It can own property in a state, just like any other American, but it doesn't own the state.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;[/QUOTE]

Any real property located in the united states is united states property. And states meet that definition.
.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see secession as illegal, but watch out whenever you attack and take over federal property such as John Brown and the Harpers Ferry federal armory and as the South did with Fort Sumter.

The federal government has no right to station troops anywhere without the host countries explicit consent. If such consent is not received, then the host country has the right to evict them using force.

 

[bripat9643]

States are not owned by the federal government, dumbass. It can own property in a state, just like any other American, but it doesn't own the state.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;

Any real property located in the united states is united states property. And states meet that definition.
.

No they don't, numskull. A state is not property, and my property is not the property of the federal government.

You have taken the road to truly stupid.

 

[Correll]

States are not owned by the federal government, dumbass. It can own property in a state, just like any other American, but it doesn't own the state.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;

Any real property located in the united states is united states property. And states meet that definition.
.[/QUOTE]


NOpe. THe government is not overlord. It owns only that which it expressly holds title to.

My land, is MY FUCKING LAND, not the governments.

 

[danielpalos]

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

The power to admit is not the power to exclude. You are "reading too much into it".

Um, if it is your job to choose which states to ADMIT, then you are by definition also, choosing which states to NOT admit, or exclude.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

Pointing out that the power to ADMIT, is also the power to NOT admit is hardly quibbling.

Yes, they are not the same thing. We already have fifty States.

 

[danielpalos]

Special pleading is still a fallacy. Why not include the entire article and section.

Article 4

Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any
State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States,
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of
the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

States are not property or US territories.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Union was created as "Perpetual", and all knew what that meant. For better or worse, that was the situation. Of course, words mean what people decide they mean, and people are free to do whatever they want. They should be prepared for the consequences. Existence is relative to how we perceive it, and in fact only is our perceiving of it.