Was seccession illegal?

[OKTexas]

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?

I guess they could, but how many crimes do you think a president could commit when they're surrounded by secret service? That's the last answer you'll get unless you get back on topic.

 

[radical right]

They had rules of war even in Lincolns time.

Rules were made to be broken, as we often did. We often didn't wear uniforms, soldiers operated in disguise. We were constantly rewriting the rules.

 

[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.

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.

The thread is about legalities, not concepts. You can conceptualize anything, doesn't make them legal.

 

[OKTexas]

They had rules of war even in Lincolns time.

Rules were made to be broken, as we often did. We often didn't wear uniforms, soldiers operated in disguise. We were constantly rewriting the rules.

And under the rules of war they can be shot on the spot as spies, even today. Spies don't get the same considerations as a uniformed soldier.

 

[radical right]

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

I guess they could, but how many crimes do you think a president could commit when they're surrounded by secret service? That's the last answer you'll get unless you get back on topic.

Seccession is extraconstituional, the same concept that it's a right reserved for the states, says states reserve the right to charge the president with a misdemeanor and throw him in jail A misdemeanor can include laws against depriving their citizens of a right or compensation..

 

[radical right]

And under the rules of war they can be shot on the spot as spies, even today. Spies don't get the same considerations as a uniformed soldier.

So can civilians. Which until the Geneva conventions had no protections.

 

[OKTexas]

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

I guess they could, but how many crimes do you think a president could commit when they're surrounded by secret service? That's the last answer you'll get unless you get back on topic.

Seccession is extraconstituional, the same concept that it's a right reserved for the states, says states reserve the right to charge the president with a misdemeanor and throw him in jail A misdemeanor can include laws against depriving their citizens of a right or compensation..

LMAO, child you need to learn the difference between a civil and criminal tort.

 

[OKTexas]

And under the rules of war they can be shot on the spot as spies, even today. Spies don't get the same considerations as a uniformed soldier.

So can civilians. Which until the Geneva conventions had no protections.

You might want to do a bit more reading on historic rules of war.

.

 

[radical right]

LMAO, child you need to learn the difference between a civil and criminal tort.

Like throwing somebody in jail for writing a bad check?

 

[radical right]

And under the rules of war they can be shot on the spot as spies, even today. Spies don't get the same considerations as a uniformed soldier.

So can civilians. Which until the Geneva conventions had no protections.

You might want to do a bit more reading on historic rules of war.

.

You can accuse an entire village of being enemy spies. There is no requirement you actually prove it before the executions begin.

 

[OKTexas]

And under the rules of war they can be shot on the spot as spies, even today. Spies don't get the same considerations as a uniformed soldier.

So can civilians. Which until the Geneva conventions had no protections.

You might want to do a bit more reading on historic rules of war.

.

You can accuse an entire village of being enemy spies. There is no requirement you actually prove it before the executions begin.

Now you're moving to the absurd. Nite.

 

[radical right]

Now you're moving to the absurd. Nite.

Art of war - The five types of spies, including village spies, those that give information on the enemy.

 

[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.

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.

Of course, that would hardly make Lincoln look like the saint his worshippers claim he is. Lincoln was a warmonger, and that's a reality the Lincoln cult is working very hard to deny.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Murder is against the law in every state, and always has been.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There's no text in the Constitution that says a state must ask permission to leave, but there is text that says it must ask permission to join, so your theory is absurd on its face.

 

[bripat9643]

And under the rules of war they can be shot on the spot as spies, even today. Spies don't get the same considerations as a uniformed soldier.

So can civilians. Which until the Geneva conventions had no protections.

You might want to do a bit more reading on historic rules of war.

.

You can accuse an entire village of being enemy spies. There is no requirement you actually prove it before the executions begin.

Not in this country.

 

[radical right]

Murder is against the law in every state, and always has been.

The U.S. military dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed MOAB or "mother of all bombs," in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan.

The Pentagon did not say how many militants were killed by the bomb. The statement from the Defense Department said U.S. forces took "every precaution" to avoid civilian casualties.

If a state finds out one of its citizens was a casuality of the Nangarhar bombing, can they try Trump for murder?

 

[radical right]

There's no text in the Constitution that says a state must ask permission to leave, but there is text that says it must ask permission to join, so your theory is absurd on its face.

That's because the constitution allows territories to ask to join, but there is no mechanism to ask to leave. Similar to the eagles ''hotel california'

 

[bripat9643]

There's no text in the Constitution that says a state must ask permission to leave, but there is text that says it must ask permission to join, so your theory is absurd on its face.

That's because the constitution allows territories to ask to join, but there is no mechanism to ask to leave. Similar to the eagles ''hotel california'

That's an interesting legal principle. According to you, if a contract doesn't cover a particular issue, then one of the parties is free to make any conditions it wants and impose them on the other. So a bank could force you to hand over your firstborn male child if there was no language in it saying it couldn't.

 

[radical right]

That's an interesting legal principle. According to you, if a contract doesn't cover a particular issue, then one of the parties is free to make any conditions it wants and impose them on the other. So a bank could force you to hand over your firstborn male child if there was no language in it saying it couldn't.

Just the opposite. I'm saying if there is no clause allowing you to use your first male child as payment, you can't use children to pay off your mortgage.