Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[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.

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.

That's how they won the war, moron, so it's not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether you have the military power required to prevent foreign powers from imposing their rule on you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Nowhere in Article Section 8 is Congress granted the power to enact legislation that allows states to leave the union -- that is, the Constitution does not give the federal Government that power.

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.

Neither are legal as the constitution does not provide the power to do either of them.

3) A constutional amendment.

Yes, that would work.

So again...
-No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
-No prohibition on the states leaving.-
-Powers not granted to the federal government and/or prohibited to the state are retained by the states
Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

 

[regent]

I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.

 

[hipeter924]

Nowhere in Article Section 8 is Congress granted the power to enact legislation that allows states to leave the union -- that is, the Constitution does not give the federal Government that power.

The US constitution doesn't mention secession to approve or oppose it. Section 8 doesn't refer to secession or approve or oppose it, and since it has been never tested it is kind of a mute point.

Neither are legal as the constitution does not provide the power to do either of them.

Until they are tried, you can't make such a claim, it would be like claiming you can't add/can add 'under god' previous to a decision on it.

-No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.

Never said it was in the constitution, instead implied that the Congress (House and Senate) have the power to propose legislation and pass treaties, so it would make sense that they would have a say on what happens as far as the continuity of states within the Union, just as the President would have.

-No prohibition on the states leaving.-

Not strictly true, as again, a 'legal' measure hasn't been tried, only unilateral secession through force.

-Powers not granted to the federal government and/or prohibited to the state are retained by the states

You can't infer from that either a support of secession, or opposition to it, as secession by states is not in there; it doesn't empower the states to secede.

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

Here is one of them: Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And others argued the opposite of secession; that indeed the new Constitution inherited perpetuity from the language in the Articles and from other actions done prior to the Constitution. Historian Kenneth Stampp explains their view:

Lacking an explicit clause in the Constitution with which to establish the Union's perpetuity, the nationalists made their case, first, with a unique interpretation of the history of the country prior to the Philadelphia Convention; second, with inferences drawn from certain passages of the Constitution; and third, with careful selections from the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. The historical case begins with the postulate that the Union is older than the states. It quotes the reference in the Declaration of Independence to "these united colonies", contends that the Second Continental Congress actually called the states into being [i.e., "colonies" no longer], notes the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation, and ends with the reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives as one of its purposes the formation of "a more perfect Union".[25]

And here is another: Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Amar explains how the Constitution impacted on state sovereignty:

In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.[31]

 

[hipeter924]

I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.

That is what the Confederacy wanted, meaning recognition, so it is kind of curious that people in this thread that support secession are so opposed to the concept of Congress passing legislation to do so, or the President allowing it.

Real reason for the secession issue being so popular among conservatives, is that the GOP politicians need an issue to rally around that they can claim to support, without actually doing anything.

The GOP know they could never get enough support even within their own state legislature, or even in a ballot measure, and bringing up secession gathers votes over an issue they never intend to seriously challenge. They just need to rage on Fox News about the 'evil' Federal government, and conservatives fall for it head and sinker.

 

[paperview]

"In toto and forever."

James Madison made it clear at the NY convention, when NY asked explicitly for a right to secede. He and Hamilton said: NO. No right exist.

A vote was taken. It was agreed.

Similarly, it had been proposed and rejected by the Virginia ratifying convention.

 

[paperview]

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the CW, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1850 Mississippi secession convention

Source: The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Mississippi! Ten years earlier they were saying it was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

I'd set it to full auto mode and go about my business. If the north wants to die then so be it. Liberty or death!

 

[paperview]

Look at this, another state saying a few decades earlier:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met

That the Constitution of the United States is not a treaty or compact between sovereign States but a form of government emanating from and established by the authority of the people of the United States of America

Resolved That the Government of the United States although one of limited powers is supreme within its sphere and that the people of the United States owe to it an allegiance that cannot be withdrawn either by individuals or masses of individuals without its consent.

Resolved That the Supreme Court of the United States is the only and proper tribunal for the settlement in the last resort of controversies in relation to the Constitution and the laws of Congress."

The Rebellion Record. Supplement.--First Volume


So when you hear some of the Lost Causers saying things like '"everyone believed a state could secede back then..."

Remember some of these words, Resolving...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nowhere in Article Section 8 is Congress granted the power to enact legislation that allows states to leave the union -- that is, the Constitution does not give the federal Government that power.

The US constitution doesn't mention secession to approve or oppose it. Section 8 doesn't refer to secession or approve or oppose it,

And so, according to the constitution, those powers remain reserved to the states.

Neither are legal as the constitution does not provide the power to do either of them.

Until they are tried, you can't make such a claim,

I can very much claim that the constitution does not give those powers as the text to that effect is found nowhere in it -- a point that you agree with.

-No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.

Never said it was in the constitution, instead implied that the Congress (House and Senate) have the power to propose legislation...

... legislation that is necessary and proper to carry out is enumerated list of powers. Necessary and Proper Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Granting cession is not among the numerated powers, and so congress cannot create legislation to that effect.

-No prohibition on the states leaving.

Not strictly true, as again,

Please quote the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving.

-Powers not granted to the federal government and/or prohibited to the state are retained by the states

You can't infer from that either a support of secession, or opposition to it, as secession by states is not in there; it doesn't empower the states to secede.

The construction of the sentence does exactly that.

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

Here is one of them: Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Explain how this is sound, in light of everything noted above.

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.

The solution is for the federal government to follow the Constitution and refrain from invading the states and committing mass murder. If a state wants to leave, that's its prerogative.

I can't imagine anything more idiotic than claiming the gold standard is anti free market. The gold standard is the foundation of the free market. You don't even need government to implement it. In fact, the federal government actively prosecutes anyone who even tries to set up accounts denominated in units of gold.

 

[bripat9643]

Look at this, another state saying a few decades earlier:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met

That the Constitution of the United States is not a treaty or compact between sovereign States but a form of government emanating from and established by the authority of the people of the United States of America

Resolved That the Government of the United States although one of limited powers is supreme within its sphere and that the people of the United States owe to it an allegiance that cannot be withdrawn either by individuals or masses of individuals without its consent.

Resolved That the Supreme Court of the United States is the only and proper tribunal for the settlement in the last resort of controversies in relation to the Constitution and the laws of Congress."

The Rebellion Record. Supplement.--First Volume


So when you hear some of the Lost Causers saying things like '"everyone believed a state could secede back then..."

Remember some of these words, Resolving...

How is any bill approved in one state binding on any other? How is South Carolina bound by any resolution passed in Deleware?

FAIL. To accept this you would have to acknowledge the concept of states rights, which you categorically reject.

 

[paperview]

Look at this, another state saying a few decades earlier:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met

That the Constitution of the United States is not a treaty or compact between sovereign States but a form of government emanating from and established by the authority of the people of the United States of America

Resolved That the Government of the United States although one of limited powers is supreme within its sphere and that the people of the United States owe to it an allegiance that cannot be withdrawn either by individuals or masses of individuals without its consent.

Resolved That the Supreme Court of the United States is the only and proper tribunal for the settlement in the last resort of controversies in relation to the Constitution and the laws of Congress."

The Rebellion Record. Supplement.--First Volume


So when you hear some of the Lost Causers saying things like '"everyone believed a state could secede back then..."

Remember some of these words, Resolving...

How is any bill approved in one state binding on any other?

FAIL. To accept this you would have to acknowledge the concept of states rights, which you categorically reject.

It's showing how some of the states that studied it at the time - slave states even -- came away saying Secession is not sanctioned by the US Constitution.

 

[regent]

We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.

 

[bripat9643]

Look at this, another state saying a few decades earlier:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met

That the Constitution of the United States is not a treaty or compact between sovereign States but a form of government emanating from and established by the authority of the people of the United States of America

Resolved That the Government of the United States although one of limited powers is supreme within its sphere and that the people of the United States owe to it an allegiance that cannot be withdrawn either by individuals or masses of individuals without its consent.

Resolved That the Supreme Court of the United States is the only and proper tribunal for the settlement in the last resort of controversies in relation to the Constitution and the laws of Congress."

The Rebellion Record. Supplement.--First Volume


So when you hear some of the Lost Causers saying things like '"everyone believed a state could secede back then..."

Remember some of these words, Resolving...

How is any bill approved in one state binding on any other?

FAIL. To accept this you would have to acknowledge the concept of states rights, which you categorically reject.

It's showing how some of the states that studied it at the time - slave states even -- came away saying Secession is not sanctioned by the US Constitution.

What the hell did they "study?" The Constitution comprises only a few pages. Many other people "studied" the document and reached the opposite conclusion. A group of people stating their opinion is no more meaningful than the latest poll on HIllary's popularity.

 

[bripat9643]

We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.

Only a congenital numskull believes the Supreme Court is infallible.

 

[regent]

We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.

Only a congenital numskull believes the Supreme Court is infallible.

It is the Court and when you become the Court, you can make big decisions too, and if the decisions are infallible, so be it, you are the Court.

 

[bripat9643]

We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.

Only a congenital numskull believes the Supreme Court is infallible.

It is the Court and when you become the Court, you can make big decisions too, and if the decisions are infallible, so be it, you are the Court.

ROFL! In other words, you do believe the court is infallible. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[regent]

We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.

Only a congenital numskull believes the Supreme Court is infallible.

It is the Court and when you become the Court, you can make big decisions too, and if the decisions are infallible, so be it, you are the Court.

ROFL! In other words, you do believe the court is infallible. Thanks for admitting it.

Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.

 

[bripat9643]

We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.

Only a congenital numskull believes the Supreme Court is infallible.

It is the Court and when you become the Court, you can make big decisions too, and if the decisions are infallible, so be it, you are the Court.

ROFL! In other words, you do believe the court is infallible. Thanks for admitting it.

Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.

So you admit that court decisions can be wrong. No you just have to prove that the court was right when it ruled against secession.