Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Constitution has already been cited look in the thread.The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.
Feel free to quote article, section and clause that says a majority vote is required for a State to secede.
Argument from ignorance.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.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
So might makes right? Is that really your argument?Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.I just don't agree.
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.
Only Lincoln committed any acts of war.Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated before the traitorous confeds yanked up their marbles and started committing acts of war.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.
I will go to DC so I can piss on his gravr.Saturday is the 152nd anniversary of lincolns assassination FYIGrant's opinion is no more authoritative than mine.LIke I said, get a copy of Grant's memoirs and read it.Why does that not make sense? The constitution doesn't give the federal government power of secession. Therefor, leaving it up to the states.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 .
Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. But back then..
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Some of us do know Catholics.Dinner is cooking now and it smells good.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.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.You need to read 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?
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.
Do you have any input?
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.
I need to get ready for church.
Today is Holy Thursday.
You heathens and Protestants have no idea what that is.
I will go to DC so I can piss on his gravr.Saturday is the 152nd anniversary of lincolns assassination FYIGrant's opinion is no more authoritative than mine.LIke I said, get a copy of Grant's memoirs and read it.Why does that not make sense? The constitution doesn't give the federal government power of secession. Therefor, leaving it up to the states.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 .
Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. But back then..
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.I just don't agree.
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.
Funny, I have rulings in my favor about PoL.That is up to the Court to interpret sorry you lose.That's called a GRAY area. It didn't have anything to do with a state seceding on its own. Re-read it and think about it.You already did thanks for playing.Please quote it. Thanks.Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.
I wish you weren't such an idiot. You can be funny.Speak for yourself TNHarley you are one of the worst trolls on the Internet and in USMB.Online trolls really ARE horrible people, researchers find | Daily Mail OnlineVerbosity.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 LAWWell you are certainly entitled to your opinion and it (your opinion) is no more or less sacred than anybody else's is.I just don't agree.
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.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
In a few more minutes I will put you back onto my iggy list due to your many flagrant violations of the fallacies list:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
Thank you! I knew I couldn't be the only oneThe Constitution has already been cited look in the thread.The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.
Feel free to quote article, section and clause that says a majority vote is required for a State to secede.
None of which specifically regards secession. The OP is correct, it all boils down to the 10th Amendment.
Amendment X
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.
Since the subject of secession in NOT ADDRESSED as a federal power, it is left to the States because it is not prohibited by it to the States either.
2 in a row!Argument from ignorance.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.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia
Only ignorant one appears to be you. You have yet to prove any point using the Constitution itself.
Who said anything about apply? You said the Senate decides. Now you're adding other conditions.If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
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?
Please quote it. Thanks.Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.
Lol I wasn't losing shit. Especially to you.Please quote it. Thanks.Wrong as usual the The Text is clear the Federal Government must have a say in any action by a State in regards joining or leaving the Union.That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.
As I told you in the other thread you already lost this argument in,
the states in ratifying the Constitution accepted the Supremacy Clause in that Constitution as legal and binding -
and there is no way a state could secede without violating the Supremacy Clause.
You are a retard but thanks for proving it once again.Who said anything about apply? You said the Senate decides. Now you're adding other conditions.If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Some of us do know Catholics.Dinner is cooking now and it smells good.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.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.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.
Do you have any input?
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.
I need to get ready for church.
Today is Holy Thursday.
You heathens and Protestants have no idea what that is.
One of my sister's nephews on her hubby's side is a Franciscan Monk, and at least two of my daughter's oldest and dearest friends are Catholic. So bite your tongue.
In fact, a friend of mine was just talking to me about how her son is passing the oil blessed by the archbishop tonight at mass. And my niece is enjoying Holy Thursday in ITALY!
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
In other words, you know what you posted was is stupid and wrong.Who said anything about apply? You said the Senate decides. Now you're adding other conditions..If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.
Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
You are a retard but thanks for proving it once again.
