Was seccession illegal?

[OKTexas]

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.

The Constitution has already been cited look in the thread.

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.

Thank you! I knew I couldn't be the only one

It pretty damn simple VA reserved the right to secede in their ratification documents, other States wouldn't have ratified it either had they known they would never be allowed to withdraw if the fed escaped the bonds they placed on it. As it is now only Article 5 is best means for the States to put the federal leviathan back in its box.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

Please quote it. Thanks.

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're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Please quote it. Thanks.

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.

Only moron snowflakes believe the Supremacy clause prevents the states from seceding. In the first place, there is no federal law that bars a state from seceding. How is a law that doesn't exist going to be supreme over state laws?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

Please quote it. Thanks.

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're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

Assuming that succession is legal, and I would actually agree here, there is also noting that legally stops one side of the fractured US with going to war with the new nation and re-conquering it.

IOW, arguing of the legality of succession is rather pointless - either those states leave in a manner that the country accepts or they need the raw power to back up the succession.

 

[Wolfstrike]

very few of the founders would have agreed to the Constitution if it held a hostile supremacy.
the Virginia and Massachusetts constitutions reiterated their right to walk away
only corrupt lawyers and politicians believe a state can't dissolve it's ties.

p.s. the "judicial review" that was intended b y Madison would make no difference

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

Please quote it. Thanks.

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're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

Assuming that succession is legal, and I would actually agree here, there is also noting that legally stops one side of the fractured US with going to war with the new nation and re-conquering it.

IOW, arguing of the legality of succession is rather pointless - either those states leave in a manner that the country accepts or they need the raw power to back up the succession.

In the past you would have a point, new international law says a country can't keep conquered lands after a war, so a war would be pointless.

 

[radical right]

You're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

That same concept asks, show me in the Constitution text that prohibits a state from executing the sitting president of the united states for crimes.

 

[EverCurious]

Alaska had a "succession" party at one point, got about 3,000 votes, then the leader guy died (rather mysteriously actually) and that was pretty much the end of it. The party doesn't even really exist anymore nor so much the sentiment.

... well unless you count all the cities trying to succeed from Anchorage tax thieves...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?

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

If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

You're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

That same concept asks, show me in the Constitution text that prohibits a state from executing the sitting president of the united states for crimes.

There's nothing in the Constitution that addresses that, of course you're off topic, but I'll answer anyway. A president has the same due process rights as any other citizen. He would have to first be charged, tried and convicted of a capital crime, committed within that State and appeals exhausted before he could be executed.

 

[radical right]

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.

US Const

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Please quote it. Thanks.

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're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

Assuming that succession is legal, and I would actually agree here, there is also noting that legally stops one side of the fractured US with going to war with the new nation and re-conquering it.

IOW, arguing of the legality of succession is rather pointless - either those states leave in a manner that the country accepts or they need the raw power to back up the succession.

In the past you would have a point, new international law says a country can't keep conquered lands after a war, so a war would be pointless.

International law is, once again, only as relevant as the nations power that backs it up. There are times when the US willingly violates such law and, quite frankly, we should when it involves the best interests of the US.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, if the Senate voted to make Canada part of the United States, then it would be?

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

If Canada applied and the Senate agreed yes it would.

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.

I do not see how the two instances are related.

In any contract or agreement, both parties must agree to the terms - that is a given. That is not the case when dissolving that relationship. In that case, only one must agree to dissolve it.

The other party normally would not retain the right to force you into a relationship that you do not want to be a party of.

 

[radical right]

There's nothing in the Constitution that addresses that, of course you're off topic, but I'll answer anyway. A president has the same due process rights as any other citizen. He would have to first be charged, tried and convicted of a capital crime, committed within that State and appeals exhausted before he could be executed.

Section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United
States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the
Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
Place.

The Constitution protects congress, but doesn't do the same for the president.

 

[OKTexas]

Please quote it. Thanks.

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're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

Assuming that succession is legal, and I would actually agree here, there is also noting that legally stops one side of the fractured US with going to war with the new nation and re-conquering it.

IOW, arguing of the legality of succession is rather pointless - either those states leave in a manner that the country accepts or they need the raw power to back up the succession.

In the past you would have a point, new international law says a country can't keep conquered lands after a war, so a war would be pointless.

International law is, once again, only as relevant as the nations power that backs it up. There are times when the US willingly violates such law and, quite frankly, we should when it involves the best interests of the US.

Yeah, Lincoln had no problem ignoring the rules of war either. Besides throwing out all the principles this country was founded on, he targeted civilians and non military objectives.

 

[OKTexas]

There's nothing in the Constitution that addresses that, of course you're off topic, but I'll answer anyway. A president has the same due process rights as any other citizen. He would have to first be charged, tried and convicted of a capital crime, committed within that State and appeals exhausted before he could be executed.

Section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United
States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the
Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of
their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
Place.

The Constitution protects congress, but doesn't do the same for the president.

It doesn't protect anyone from a felony, which a capital crime would be.



.

 

[radical right]

Yeah, Lincoln had no problem ignoring the rules of war either. Besides throwing out all the principles this country was founded on, he targeted civilians and non military objectives.

The Geneva conventions aren't retroactive.

 

[radical right]

It doesn't protect anyone from a felony, which a capital crime would be.
.

Can a state throw the president in jail for a misdemeanor?

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, Lincoln had no problem ignoring the rules of war either. Besides throwing out all the principles this country was founded on, he targeted civilians and non military objectives.

The Geneva conventions aren't retroactive.

They had rules of war even in Lincolns time.

 

[FA_Q2]

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're full of crap, the supremacy clause only applies to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the State are supreme in all other aspects. Once again, show me the constitutional text that prohibits a State from withdrawing form the Union.

Assuming that succession is legal, and I would actually agree here, there is also noting that legally stops one side of the fractured US with going to war with the new nation and re-conquering it.

IOW, arguing of the legality of succession is rather pointless - either those states leave in a manner that the country accepts or they need the raw power to back up the succession.

In the past you would have a point, new international law says a country can't keep conquered lands after a war, so a war would be pointless.

International law is, once again, only as relevant as the nations power that backs it up. There are times when the US willingly violates such law and, quite frankly, we should when it involves the best interests of the US.

Yeah, Lincoln had no problem ignoring the rules of war either. Besides throwing out all the principles this country was founded on, he targeted civilians and non military objectives.

I did not comment on Lincoln or his actions - just on the concept of succession.