Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[hipeter924]

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

Already know how MAD claims to work, but my point is that MAD only is effective until one side believes (or has the capability) to get away with acceptable losses like a few major cities in exchange for all of Texas.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

Already know how MAD claims to work, but my point is that MAD only is effective until one side believes (or has the capability) to get away with acceptable losses like a few major cities in exchange for all of Texas.

MAD is never effective, mutually assured destruction is you leave us alone or we both die.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

 

[hipeter924]

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

What part of the US Congress and the President have the power to pass legislation and enforce treaties do you not understand? That is in the Constitution, and in various Supreme Court decisions.

There are three untested, but technically legal methods of secession:
1) The US House passing legislation that recognizes the independence and secession of Texas, and the defacto acceptance by the President not impeding it.
2) The US House and Senate approving it through legislation, and the President signing off on it.
3) A constutional amendment.

Any of those could work, given the right circumstances.

 

[hipeter924]

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

Already know how MAD claims to work, but my point is that MAD only is effective until one side believes (or has the capability) to get away with acceptable losses like a few major cities in exchange for all of Texas.

MAD is never effective, mutually assured destruction is you leave us alone or we both die.

And would you push the button, if it means self annihilation, or fight with conventional forces instead?

 

[bripat9643]

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did. The civil war however, did result in unilateral secession being ruled unlawful - or in the very least a guarantee that if a state attempted to unilaterally secede again that the US military was allowed to respond to that threat to keep it in the union.

It was ruled "unlawful" by Abraham Lincoln, who has no authority to rule one way or the other.

All you're saying, once again, is that might makes right. What if I rule you are "unlawful" by barbecuing pork in your backyard and beat the crap out of you? According to your theory of "ethics," that is perfectly OK and even admirable.

I just can't get over how thoroughly Nazified the Lincoln cult is.

 

[bripat9643]

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

What part of the US Congress and the President have the power to pass legislation and enforce treaties do you not understand? That is in the Constitution, and in various Supreme Court decisions.

There are three untested, but technically legal methods of secession:
1) The US House passing legislation that recognizes the independence and secession of Texas, and the defacto acceptance by the President not impeding it.
2) The US House and Senate approving it through legislation, and the President signing off on it.
3) A constutional amendment.

Any of those could work, given the right circumstances.

The power to make treaties or pass legislation has nothing to do with secession.

Your "three legal methods" are total bullshit. Where is the evidence that those are the only legal methods?

Nowhere, obviously. You keep spouting idiocies that are obviously untrue. Try quoting some original source material once in a while. That might raise your credibility above zero.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

Already know how MAD claims to work, but my point is that MAD only is effective until one side believes (or has the capability) to get away with acceptable losses like a few major cities in exchange for all of Texas.

Only a supreme asshole would actually propose nuclear annihilation to prevent secession.

 

[bripat9643]

On your board game, did the Court rule on the treaty? Would the president then follow the Court's decision? Would the president then again use power to prevent secession?
Are you moving little pawns around in the squares of your game? Do you have chance cards too?

What the fuck are you babbling about? You're the one who made up the ridiculous scenario where the South beats the North on the battlefield but then signs a treaty with it.

What do you think happened in Paris in 1784? The US and British Empire signed a treaty that acknowledged the independent status of the US. But in your revisionist history that never happened right?

They simply acknowledge a fact of reality. If the British hadn't signed the treaty, the U.S. would still have been an independent country. When you are beat, you are beat. It doesn't matter whether you cry "uncle" or not.

 

[hipeter924]

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

Already know how MAD claims to work, but my point is that MAD only is effective until one side believes (or has the capability) to get away with acceptable losses like a few major cities in exchange for all of Texas.

Only a supreme asshole would actually propose nuclear annihilation to prevent secession.

Such as yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.

Already know how MAD claims to work, but my point is that MAD only is effective until one side believes (or has the capability) to get away with acceptable losses like a few major cities in exchange for all of Texas.

Only a supreme asshole would actually propose nuclear annihilation to prevent secession.

Such as yourself.

When did I ever propose nuclear annihilation of anyone?

 

[hipeter924]

The power to make treaties or pass legislation has nothing to do with secession.

False, most instances of secession result by treaty and legislation: Secession - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "three legal methods" are total bullshit. Where is the evidence that those are the only legal methods?

They aren't 'my legal methods', but the ones brought up on arguments over secession: FindLaw s Writ - Dorf Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede

If Congress Alone Approves a Secession Petition, What Counts as Approval?

The first difficulty is a matter of arithmetic.

Suppose that Congress simultaneously received secession petitions from all the blue states, and that the Congressional delegations of these states all supported these petitions. Suppose further that a minority of the Congressional representatives of the red states also supported the petitions. (Their reaction: "Good riddance.") Adding the votes of representatives from the blue states to the votes of representatives from the minority of red states would yield a pro-secession majority in the existing Congress.
[...]
One might thus conclude that Congress can only approve a secession petition if the controlling bill obtains a majority of the votes of representatives of non-seceding states in both houses of Congress.
[...]
But while that solution makes some theoretical sense, it is also, from a constitutional perspective, arbitrary. Why this particular mechanism rather than some other mechanism--such as a national referendum, or a two-thirds (or three-quarters or three-fifths) vote in the existing Congress?

The fourth method would be a national referendum, but you just want to rage, rather than discuss, so meh.

[...]rant continues[...]End.

*yawn*
So says the guy that claims that everyone that disagrees with him is either a Nazi, is part of a 'Lincoln cult', or endorses 'mass murder'.

 

[hipeter924]

It was ruled "unlawful" by Abraham Lincoln, who has no authority to rule one way or the other.

All you're saying, once again, is that might makes right. What if I rule you are "unlawful" by barbecuing pork in your backyard and beat the crap out of you? According to your theory of "ethics," that is perfectly OK and even admirable.
I just can't get over how thoroughly Nazified the Lincoln cult is.

Yet you use Lincoln's arguments.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Link: FindLaw s Writ - Dorf Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede

 

[bripat9643]

It was ruled "unlawful" by Abraham Lincoln, who has no authority to rule one way or the other.

All you're saying, once again, is that might makes right. What if I rule you are "unlawful" by barbecuing pork in your backyard and beat the crap out of you? According to your theory of "ethics," that is perfectly OK and even admirable.
I just can't get over how thoroughly Nazified the Lincoln cult is.

Yet you use Lincoln's arguments.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Link: FindLaw s Writ - Dorf Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede

I'm sure you can find some Marxist lawyer to support virtually anything you want to support. I can find plenty of websites were lawyers and judges say precisely the opposite.

So what?

 

[bripat9643]

The power to make treaties or pass legislation has nothing to do with secession.

False, most instances of secession result by treaty and legislation: Secession - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "three legal methods" are total bullshit. Where is the evidence that those are the only legal methods?

They aren't 'my legal methods', but the ones brought up on arguments over secession: FindLaw s Writ - Dorf Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede

If Congress Alone Approves a Secession Petition, What Counts as Approval?

The first difficulty is a matter of arithmetic.

Suppose that Congress simultaneously received secession petitions from all the blue states, and that the Congressional delegations of these states all supported these petitions. Suppose further that a minority of the Congressional representatives of the red states also supported the petitions. (Their reaction: "Good riddance.") Adding the votes of representatives from the blue states to the votes of representatives from the minority of red states would yield a pro-secession majority in the existing Congress.
[...]
One might thus conclude that Congress can only approve a secession petition if the controlling bill obtains a majority of the votes of representatives of non-seceding states in both houses of Congress.
[...]
But while that solution makes some theoretical sense, it is also, from a constitutional perspective, arbitrary. Why this particular mechanism rather than some other mechanism--such as a national referendum, or a two-thirds (or three-quarters or three-fifths) vote in the existing Congress?

The fourth method would be a national referendum, but you just want to rage, rather than discuss, so meh.

[...]rant continues[...]End.

*yawn*
So says the guy that claims that everyone that disagrees with him is either a Nazi, is part of a 'Lincoln cult', or endorses 'mass murder'.

The fact that some leftist lawyer who is a lifelong member of the Lincoln cult makes up some bogus arguments about secession proves nothing. The bottom line: There is no language in the Constitution to support these theories.

It's all total and complete horseshit.

 

[hipeter924]

They simply acknowledge a fact of reality. If the British hadn't signed the treaty, the U.S. would still have been an independent country. When you are beat, you are beat. It doesn't matter whether you cry "uncle" or not.

No, much more than that. Without a treaty the US would have continued to have diplomatic and trade restrictions in regards to the British Empire (including its subject states like Canada). The US would not have been regarded an independent country by the British Empire (which at its height controlled 1/3 of globe). Why won't you admit that legal recognition matters, or does it hurt your feelings that no one recognized the Confederacy, but France recognized the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

They simply acknowledge a fact of reality. If the British hadn't signed the treaty, the U.S. would still have been an independent country. When you are beat, you are beat. It doesn't matter whether you cry "uncle" or not.

No, much more than that. Without a treaty the US would have continued to have diplomatic and trade restrictions in regards to the British Empire (including its subject states like Canada). The US would not have been regarded an independent country by the British Empire (which at its height controlled 1/3 of globe). Why won't you admit that legal recognition matters, or does it hurt your feelings that no one recognized the Confederacy, but France recognized the United States.

Here's a clue for you: the British imposed trade restrictions on all nations that were not part of the empire. The document is irrelevant. The United States became a sovereign nation by winning the war, not because of signing some useless document.

 

[hipeter924]

It was ruled "unlawful" by Abraham Lincoln, who has no authority to rule one way or the other.

All you're saying, once again, is that might makes right. What if I rule you are "unlawful" by barbecuing pork in your backyard and beat the crap out of you? According to your theory of "ethics," that is perfectly OK and even admirable.
I just can't get over how thoroughly Nazified the Lincoln cult is.

Yet you use Lincoln's arguments.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Link: FindLaw s Writ - Dorf Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede

I'm sure you can find some Marxist lawyer to support virtually anything you want to support. I can find plenty of websites were lawyers and judges say precisely the opposite.

So what?

Now everyone that disagrees with you is a 'Marxist' too: Michael C. Dorf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Professor Dorf appears in American news media occasionally as a legal expert, and has been interviewed by and/or quoted in, for example, The New York Times,[1][2]CNN[3]National Public Radio,[4] and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.[5] He has also been cited in numerous judicial opinions, including the majority opinion of JusticeJohn Paul Stevens in the Supreme Court case City of Chicago v. Morales.[6]

Yeah, a real 'Marxist', not.

 

[hipeter924]

They simply acknowledge a fact of reality. If the British hadn't signed the treaty, the U.S. would still have been an independent country. When you are beat, you are beat. It doesn't matter whether you cry "uncle" or not.

No, much more than that. Without a treaty the US would have continued to have diplomatic and trade restrictions in regards to the British Empire (including its subject states like Canada). The US would not have been regarded an independent country by the British Empire (which at its height controlled 1/3 of globe). Why won't you admit that legal recognition matters, or does it hurt your feelings that no one recognized the Confederacy, but France recognized the United States.

Here's a clue for you: the British imposed trade restrictions on all nations that were not part of the empire. The document is irrelevant. The United States became a sovereign nation by winning the war, not because of signing some useless document.

Wrong. Without military support and recognition from France, it is doubtful that the US could have achieved independence. Recognition does matter, as it did for Kosovo and numerous other countries that were involved in conflicts in the past and present.

 

[bripat9643]

It was ruled "unlawful" by Abraham Lincoln, who has no authority to rule one way or the other.

All you're saying, once again, is that might makes right. What if I rule you are "unlawful" by barbecuing pork in your backyard and beat the crap out of you? According to your theory of "ethics," that is perfectly OK and even admirable.
I just can't get over how thoroughly Nazified the Lincoln cult is.

Yet you use Lincoln's arguments.

Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.

But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.

Link: FindLaw s Writ - Dorf Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede

I'm sure you can find some Marxist lawyer to support virtually anything you want to support. I can find plenty of websites were lawyers and judges say precisely the opposite.

So what?

Now everyone that disagrees with you is a 'Marxist' too: Michael C. Dorf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Professor Dorf appears in American news media occasionally as a legal expert, and has been interviewed by and/or quoted in, for example, The New York Times,[1][2]CNN[3]National Public Radio,[4] and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.[5] He has also been cited in numerous judicial opinions, including the majority opinion of JusticeJohn Paul Stevens in the Supreme Court case City of Chicago v. Morales.[6]

Yeah, a real 'Marxist', not.

How does any of that prove he's not a Marxist? If anything, appearing on National Public Radio, the Daily Show and the New York Times would indicate he is a Marxist. Justice Stevens is a liberal idiot, so the fact that he quotes this guy so often is also an indication that he's a leftist and a fool. He is without a doubt a leftist and a member in good standing of the Lincoln cult.