Was seccession illegal?

[bripat9643]

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.

Who made him an authority on the Constitution!

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[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. The Founders were adamant about states rights. Southern states would have never entered the Union if they did not think they had the right to leave if federal government began moving them in directions they did not want to go. But that was then. Argument has been settled.

It was settled AFTER the fact, though. That's why I bring it up. Hindsight is 20/20 and the principle of legality states otherwise.

 

[Bush92]

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 .

Marshall did a " double switch " with Marbury v. Madison. Constituon never gave the Supreme judicial review or the power to declare laws unconstitutional. But he used the powers of Congress to establish the courts to justify power to declare laws unconstitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Grant's opinion is no more authoritative than mine.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[yiostheoy]

I just don't agree.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.

Grant won the war for Lincoln, and the Confederal generals surrendered across the board when Lee surrendered to Grant.

Between Grant and Sherman and Sheridan it was obvious that the Union Armies could easily mop up the Confederacy. For the sake of decency the Confederates did not pursue a protracted guerilla war.

So Lincoln, Grant, the voters who re-elected Lincoln and who elected Grant twice, and Sherman all disagree with you TNHarley .

That should give you pause at least.

Q.E.D.

 

[paperview]

Nothing at all about seceding is in the U.S. Constitution.

That leaves the issue itself to the SCOTUS to decide upon.

Lincoln however did not wait for a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

He just ordered Union Gen. McDowell to attack at the First Battle Of Bull Run, which was repulsed by Confederate Generals Beauregard and J.E. Johnston, which was the first major battle of the U.S. Civil War.

Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated before the traitorous confeds yanked up their marbles and started committing acts of war.

 

[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..

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

Grant's opinion is no more authoritative than mine.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Saturday is the 152nd anniversary of lincolns assassination FYI

 

[TNHarley]

I just don't agree.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.

Grant won the war for Lincoln, and the Confederal generals surrendered across the board when Lee surrendered to Grant.

Between Grant and Sherman and Sheridan it was obvious that the Union Armies could easily mop up the Confederacy. For the sake of decency the Confederates did not pursue a protracted guerilla war.

So Lincoln, Grant, the voters who re-elected Lincoln and who elected Grant twice, and Sherman all disagree with you TNHarley .

That should give you pause at least.

Q.E.D.

But it doesn't. AGAIN, I don't give a fuck what a totalitarian thinks or other peoples opinion. I am trying to discuss the LAW

 

[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.

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.

 

[yiostheoy]

I just don't agree.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.

Grant won the war for Lincoln, and the Confederal generals surrendered across the board when Lee surrendered to Grant.

Between Grant and Sherman and Sheridan it was obvious that the Union Armies could easily mop up the Confederacy. For the sake of decency the Confederates did not pursue a protracted guerilla war.

So Lincoln, Grant, the voters who re-elected Lincoln and who elected Grant twice, and Sherman all disagree with you TNHarley .

That should give you pause at least.

Q.E.D.

But it doesn't. AGAIN, I don't give a fuck what a totalitarian thinks or other peoples opinion. I am trying to discuss the LAW

Verbosity.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[Bush92]

Nothing at all about seceding is in the U.S. Constitution.

That leaves the issue itself to the SCOTUS to decide upon.

Lincoln however did not wait for a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

He just ordered Union Gen. McDowell to attack at the First Battle Of Bull Run, which was repulsed by Confederate Generals Beauregard and J.E. Johnston, which was the first major battle of the U.S. Civil War.

Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated before the traitorous confeds yanked up their marbles and started committing acts of war.

Why wait? They had already stated his election would be unacceptable.

 

[yiostheoy]

It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.

Go to college and learn how to write.

 

[bripat9643]

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 .

Nothing you have posted demonstrates that you are well read. It mostly demonstrates that you're a pompous imbecile.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[TNHarley]

I just don't agree.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.

Grant won the war for Lincoln, and the Confederal generals surrendered across the board when Lee surrendered to Grant.

Between Grant and Sherman and Sheridan it was obvious that the Union Armies could easily mop up the Confederacy. For the sake of decency the Confederates did not pursue a protracted guerilla war.

So Lincoln, Grant, the voters who re-elected Lincoln and who elected Grant twice, and Sherman all disagree with you TNHarley .

That should give you pause at least.

Q.E.D.

But it doesn't. AGAIN, I don't give a fuck what a totalitarian thinks or other peoples opinion. I am trying to discuss the LAW

Verbosity.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Online trolls really ARE horrible people, researchers find | Daily Mail Online

 

[OKTexas]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

Nor does it withhold a States right to withdraw without permission. You also might want to look up the definition of a Republican form of government.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

The issue of secession is not mentioned in the Constitution.

The issue of Ratification is.

The issue of Union is.

The power of the POTUS to defend the Constitution is.

 

[12icer]

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

So who is grant to make that statement? Reading his scribblings is like reading hitlers. You would actually need to read the Constitutional convention discourse, and The differences between the Articles of Confederation, and the Final draft of the Constitution. The wandering memoirs of a patent murderer, pirate and pillager are nothing but that.

 

[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.

Spam.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

No. The Union wanted the resources of the south, and they laid on them until they finally revolted.

 

[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.

Dinner is cooking now and it smells good.

I need to get ready for church.

Today is Holy Thursday.

You heathens and Protestants have no idea what that is.