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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
If the Court said corporations are people, they are people, I never said the Court was wrong on that issue, I don't approve of the decision but then there is probably a number of Court decisions that I don't approve, but they are still the law of the land.Whether the Court ruled that corporations are people is immaterial to the issue of the Court ruling secession is unconstitutional, as is your belief that the Court was Lincoln appointed hacks.So it's still unconstitutional.The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
It has never been unconstitutional. The court ruled that corporations are people. Do you also believe that issue has been settled?
If you believe the court ruling means secession is unconstitutional, then to be consistent you have to believe that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the court is the final authority in terms of absolute truth on one issue, while claiming they're just a bunch of hacks when it comes to another issue. Although as a lib I'm sure you want to.
Sure there is. It is called the Congress and the President, who have the legal responsibility for legislation and treaties of the United States. There hasn't been an act of lawful secession as yet, so as a result it has never come up.Hardly. America is not an absolute democracy, meaning that if a majority in x state want to secede, they don't automatically achieve the right to do so.Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').
In other words, might makes right.
Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?
Instead they have to go through the full process of appealing to Congress, and then the President.
Though if you are still butt-hurt since the civil war, here's a tissue:
There is nothing in the Constitution about a process for seceding. Your belief that such is required is purely a fantasy.
Your lack of history is disturbing as hell.The same hacks that told him his suspension of heabeus corpus was unconstitutional. You are are idiotThe Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, it wasn't the same gang of hacks. It was a different gang of hacks. A majority of the ones who rules secession unconstitutional were Lincoln appointees. They were chosen specifically to rule the way they did on that issue.
No he didn't you stupid ass. He said his job was first keeping the Republic whole . That doesn't mean he supported slavery . Your stupidity is almost amazing. are you inbred?What white man back then wasn't? unlike your democrat heroes he thought owning humans was wrong .Coming from a idiot who doesn't know the true history of his democrat heroes means nothingI cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?
His ignorance is deliberate.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
I know it far better than you and the rest of the Lincoln cult. You continue blurt out claims that turn out to be totally false, like the claim that Lincoln wasn't a racist.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, actually he didn't believe owning humans was wrong. He did not oppose slavery on moral grounds. In fact, he didn't oppose it period.
Furthermore, you condemn Southerners for supporting slavery based on modern standards of morality, but you defend Lincoln on the basis that he shouldn't be held to modern standards of morality. Like all Lincoln cult members, your a scathing hypocrite.
No it isn't.The same hacks that told him his suspension of heabeus corpus was unconstitutional. You are are idiotThe Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, it wasn't the same gang of hacks. It was a different gang of hacks. A majority of the ones who rules secession unconstitutional were Lincoln appointees. They were chosen specifically to rule the way they did on that issue.
The hacks were the Supreme Court and as Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.
Hey dumb fuck how do you think our nation was formed?Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').
In other words, might makes right.
Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?
I think Bripat still believes that if a few conservatives got together with their weapons they could become an independent country within US borders.If the Court said corporations are people, they are people, I never said the Court was wrong on that issue, I don't approve of the decision but then there is probably a number of Court decisions that I don't approve, but they are still the law of the land.Whether the Court ruled that corporations are people is immaterial to the issue of the Court ruling secession is unconstitutional, as is your belief that the Court was Lincoln appointed hacks.So it's still unconstitutional.A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
It has never been unconstitutional. The court ruled that corporations are people. Do you also believe that issue has been settled?
If you believe the court ruling means secession is unconstitutional, then to be consistent you have to believe that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the court is the final authority in terms of absolute truth on one issue, while claiming they're just a bunch of hacks when it comes to another issue. Although as a lib I'm sure you want to.
Secession isn't a treaty, dumbass. A number of times bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal and they were voted down. Apparently even the U.S. Congress agrees that secession is legal and constitutional.Sure there is. It is called the Congress and the President, who have the legal responsibility for legislation and treaties of the United States. There hasn't been an act of lawful secession as yet, so as a result it has never come up.Hardly. America is not an absolute democracy, meaning that if a majority in x state want to secede, they don't automatically achieve the right to do so.Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').
In other words, might makes right.
Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?
Instead they have to go through the full process of appealing to Congress, and then the President.
Though if you are still butt-hurt since the civil war, here's a tissue:
There is nothing in the Constitution about a process for seceding. Your belief that such is required is purely a fantasy.
Simply taking up arms and calling yourself independent, was never legitimatized by the US Federal government*, and the precedent was set after the civil war that no future acts of secession through similar means would be tolerated.
The fantasy is believing otherwise.
*Ironic given America's founding, but still a precedent set after the Confederacy sought to secede through military means.
If the Court said corporations are people, they are people, I never said the Court was wrong on that issue, I don't approve of the decision but then there is probably a number of Court decisions that I don't approve, but they are still the law of the land.Whether the Court ruled that corporations are people is immaterial to the issue of the Court ruling secession is unconstitutional, as is your belief that the Court was Lincoln appointed hacks.So it's still unconstitutional.A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
It has never been unconstitutional. The court ruled that corporations are people. Do you also believe that issue has been settled?
If you believe the court ruling means secession is unconstitutional, then to be consistent you have to believe that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the court is the final authority in terms of absolute truth on one issue, while claiming they're just a bunch of hacks when it comes to another issue. Although as a lib I'm sure you want to.
Your lack of history is disturbing as hell.The same hacks that told him his suspension of heabeus corpus was unconstitutional. You are are idiotThe Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, it wasn't the same gang of hacks. It was a different gang of hacks. A majority of the ones who rules secession unconstitutional were Lincoln appointees. They were chosen specifically to rule the way they did on that issue.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No he didn't you stupid ass. He said his job was first keeping the Republic whole . That doesn't mean he supported slavery . Your stupidity is almost amazing. are you inbred?What white man back then wasn't? unlike your democrat heroes he thought owning humans was wrong .Coming from a idiot who doesn't know the true history of his democrat heroes means nothingHis ignorance is deliberate.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
I know it far better than you and the rest of the Lincoln cult. You continue blurt out claims that turn out to be totally false, like the claim that Lincoln wasn't a racist.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, actually he didn't believe owning humans was wrong. He did not oppose slavery on moral grounds. In fact, he didn't oppose it period.
Furthermore, you condemn Southerners for supporting slavery based on modern standards of morality, but you defend Lincoln on the basis that he shouldn't be held to modern standards of morality. Like all Lincoln cult members, your a scathing hypocrite.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Hey dumb fuck how do you think our nation was formed?Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').
In other words, might makes right.
Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
I think Bripat still believes that if a few conservatives got together with their weapons they could become an independent country within US borders.If the Court said corporations are people, they are people, I never said the Court was wrong on that issue, I don't approve of the decision but then there is probably a number of Court decisions that I don't approve, but they are still the law of the land.Whether the Court ruled that corporations are people is immaterial to the issue of the Court ruling secession is unconstitutional, as is your belief that the Court was Lincoln appointed hacks.So it's still unconstitutional.
It has never been unconstitutional. The court ruled that corporations are people. Do you also believe that issue has been settled?
If you believe the court ruling means secession is unconstitutional, then to be consistent you have to believe that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the court is the final authority in terms of absolute truth on one issue, while claiming they're just a bunch of hacks when it comes to another issue. Although as a lib I'm sure you want to.
I can't wait till they refuse to pay their taxes, as the IRS won't give a shit what fictional fiefdom they call themselves. Nor will the Swat Teams.
None of that post was correctYour lack of history is disturbing as hell.The same hacks that told him his suspension of heabeus corpus was unconstitutional. You are are idiotThe Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, it wasn't the same gang of hacks. It was a different gang of hacks. A majority of the ones who rules secession unconstitutional were Lincoln appointees. They were chosen specifically to rule the way they did on that issue.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
What have I posted that isn't factually correct?
Nothing in his entire life showed he supported slavery you idiot.No he didn't you stupid ass. He said his job was first keeping the Republic whole . That doesn't mean he supported slavery . Your stupidity is almost amazing. are you inbred?What white man back then wasn't? unlike your democrat heroes he thought owning humans was wrong .Coming from a idiot who doesn't know the true history of his democrat heroes means nothing
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
I know it far better than you and the rest of the Lincoln cult. You continue blurt out claims that turn out to be totally false, like the claim that Lincoln wasn't a racist.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, actually he didn't believe owning humans was wrong. He did not oppose slavery on moral grounds. In fact, he didn't oppose it period.
Furthermore, you condemn Southerners for supporting slavery based on modern standards of morality, but you defend Lincoln on the basis that he shouldn't be held to modern standards of morality. Like all Lincoln cult members, your a scathing hypocrite.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
His statements and his actions demonstrate that he supported slavery. He even supported a bill to enshrine slavery into the Constitution.
You keep accusing me of being ignorant of history, but everything you post is ignorant.
You're a typical Lincoln cult member: Everything you know about your sainted hero is bullshit and propaganda.
Hitler is just like your confederate heroes it is also why he lostHey dumb fuck how do you think our nation was formed?Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').
In other words, might makes right.
Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
So you agree that might makes right? Was it OK for Hitler to invade Poland and France?
You really are a dumbass.
Most of what you post, so I don't bother to keep up.Your lack of history is disturbing as hell.The same hacks that told him his suspension of heabeus corpus was unconstitutional. You are are idiotThe Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.
A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.
So what?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
No, it wasn't the same gang of hacks. It was a different gang of hacks. A majority of the ones who rules secession unconstitutional were Lincoln appointees. They were chosen specifically to rule the way they did on that issue.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
What have I posted that isn't factually correct?
Ignoring history again. A treaty in Paris acknowledged US secession from the British Empire in 1784, after the war of independence. And treaties have guaranteed the independence of certain states by major powers for centuries.Secession isn't a treaty, dumbass. A number of times bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal and they were voted down. Apparently even the U.S. Congress agrees that secession is legal and constitutional.Sure there is. It is called the Congress and the President, who have the legal responsibility for legislation and treaties of the United States. There hasn't been an act of lawful secession as yet, so as a result it has never come up.Hardly. America is not an absolute democracy, meaning that if a majority in x state want to secede, they don't automatically achieve the right to do so.Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.
Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').
In other words, might makes right.
Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?
Instead they have to go through the full process of appealing to Congress, and then the President.
Though if you are still butt-hurt since the civil war, here's a tissue:
There is nothing in the Constitution about a process for seceding. Your belief that such is required is purely a fantasy.
Simply taking up arms and calling yourself independent, was never legitimatized by the US Federal government*, and the precedent was set after the civil war that no future acts of secession through similar means would be tolerated.
The fantasy is believing otherwise.
*Ironic given America's founding, but still a precedent set after the Confederacy sought to secede through military means.
Where does any document say it has to be "legitimized?" What you Lincoln cult turds have consistently failed to do is prove that there is the slightest evidence that the Constitution prohibits secession. The "precedent," as you call it, was a brutal invasion. Apparently the Nazi's set the "precedent" that it's OK to invade your neighbours and slaughter millions of unpopular minorities.
Apparently liberals posses the moral code of mass murderers.
In this thread you seem to believe you can't win a debate without calling someone a Nazi.I think Bripat still believes that if a few conservatives got together with their weapons they could become an independent country within US borders.If the Court said corporations are people, they are people, I never said the Court was wrong on that issue, I don't approve of the decision but then there is probably a number of Court decisions that I don't approve, but they are still the law of the land.Whether the Court ruled that corporations are people is immaterial to the issue of the Court ruling secession is unconstitutional, as is your belief that the Court was Lincoln appointed hacks.It has never been unconstitutional. The court ruled that corporations are people. Do you also believe that issue has been settled?
If you believe the court ruling means secession is unconstitutional, then to be consistent you have to believe that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the court is the final authority in terms of absolute truth on one issue, while claiming they're just a bunch of hacks when it comes to another issue. Although as a lib I'm sure you want to.
I can't wait till they refuse to pay their taxes, as the IRS won't give a shit what fictional fiefdom they call themselves. Nor will the Swat Teams.
If it wasn't for the stuff you make up how could you ever win any points in a debate?
He does.He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.Thanks for proving my point about the 10th amendment. Now that you are more educated go and learn some more. Ignorance is not a good thing the live inMurder and rape are not in the Constitution ether does that mean those are legal?
No - it means those things are handled by the states. Can you think at all?
Which is it?
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
