Was seccession illegal?

[bripat9643]

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.

It was "created as perpetual?" That's ridiculous bullshit. Those words are propaganda. They have no legal force.

 

[there4eyeM]

...and "unalienable rights"?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Even the Articles of Confederation ended, along with that Union.

In any case, most of the States are just kidding when they claim they want to leave the Union. It is usually just "rich guys" wanting to "change some rules for their benefit".

 

[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.

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.

No way the federal government is simply going to give up any fort it wishes to retain, you're being silly. Take for example Guantanamo Bay, the government has leased it from Cuba ever since the Spanish-American War. Attempting to simply hand over such assets takes time and negotiations, just ask Obama.

 

[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.

No way the federal government is simply going to give up any fort it wishes to retain, you're being silly. Take for example Guantanamo Bay, the government has leased it from Cuba ever since the Spanish-American War. Attempting to simply hand over such assets takes time and negotiations, just ask Obama.

The only reason it hasn't handed over Guantanamo is the fact that the USA can crush Cuba like a bug. If it didn't have that power, then Cuba could repossess it and It would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Anywhere else the host country wanted us to leave, we did. All you're arguing is that might makes right.

 

[bripat9643]

Which amendment gave the federal government the power to prevent secession?

That would include eminent domain. A power of government inherent in sovereignty.

You are really getting desperate, aren't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

The violence was all perpetrated by Lincoln, not the seceding states. Nothing in the Constitution covers secession. As you have already admitted, that makes it perfectly legal for states to take such an action.

Wrong. The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession because it binds the states to the legal supremacy of the Constitution.

Horseshit. That's a fantasy, not a legal fact.

It's absolutely a fact. Pass a state law denying women the right to vote and see what happens, as an example.

Or better yet, pass a state law outlawing the private ownership of handguns and see what happens.

 

[TNHarley]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which amendment gave the federal government the power to prevent secession?

That would include eminent domain. A power of government inherent in sovereignty.

Eminent domain is not an amendment. It's an enumerated power.

For the record, amendments carry just as much weight as anything else in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

The violence was all perpetrated by Lincoln, not the seceding states. Nothing in the Constitution covers secession. As you have already admitted, that makes it perfectly legal for states to take such an action.

Wrong. The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession because it binds the states to the legal supremacy of the Constitution.

Horseshit. That's a fantasy, not a legal fact.

It's absolutely a fact. Pass a state law denying women the right to vote and see what happens, as an example.

Or better yet, pass a state law outlawing the private ownership of handguns and see what happens.

See how Harley thinks the funny face is a rebuttal. Infantile.

 

[TNHarley]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

 

[yiostheoy]

bump !!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

 

[Picaro]

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?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

Madison shot down any attempt to give the Federal government the right to use military power against a state govt. during the Constitutional Convention, when Pickney and other hard core Federalists wanted to introduce the clause that granted that power to the Feds. Some like to pretend there is some sort of 'implied power', but that's nonsense because we can see that it was specifically rejected as a power during the Convention itself.

 

[TNHarley]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

 

[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?

Nope, never was, which is why it was such a constant and often used threat by most regions. The first states to use the threat were the New England states, upset over Jefferson's winning the Presidency and for decades after, and for reasons far less justifiable than the southern states had. The 1868 'ruling' wasn't explicitly about secession, it was about the appointed military governor of Texas wanting to steal some Texas state bonds that had matured for his own pocket, and of course the completely corrupt Chase SC gladly handed them to him, most likely for a suitable bribe, of course.

How was it illegal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

Well the easiest one would have been denying the citizens of the state their right to be represented in the government of the Union.

 

[TNHarley]

29 pages and not one lawful reason why secession was illegal.
Grabaqueer tries. Sadly, he fails. As always.

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

Well the easiest one would have been denying the citizens of the state their right to be represented in the government of the Union.

In order for that to apply, secession would have to be illegal. I am asking you to show me how it was illegal. If they seceded, they aint citizens of USA

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except for the reasons given that you failed to offer any substantive refutation to.

I asked you to explain how an irrelevant part of the Constitution applied to this particular subject. You have yet to clarify.

The Supremacy Clause makes it illegal for states to make laws in conflict with the Constitution or federal law. Nor can states unilaterally decide to ignore federal laws.

Secession therefore HAS to be illegal because an act of secession would INEVITABLY violate all sorts of federal laws.

I know you don't want to get that because you don't want to lose this argument, but for just a moment use your head and common sense...

What federal laws did it violate?

Well the easiest one would have been denying the citizens of the state their right to be represented in the government of the Union.

In order for that to apply, secession would have to be illegal. I am asking you to show me how it was illegal. If they seceded, they aint citizens of USA

You're playing the chicken/egg game, or the circular argument game if you prefer.

There are two sorts of answers. Here's the first one:

The act of secession doesn't occur in a vacuum, the act of secession entails everything that follows from it.

You could declare yourself to have seceded from whatever state you live in, and as a standalone outburst on your part that might not be illegal in and of itself,

but if your secession involved actions such as refusing to pay your state taxes, refusing to license and insure your car, refusing to educate your children according to state law, etc., etc., then your secession is obviously illegal.

The second answer is, there is a legal means to constitutionally secede from the Union. It could occur by amendment.

You know, like how people say, hey, if you don't like gun rights, amend the Constitution. Otherwise, fuck off!!