From Scalia's Mouth: There is no right to secede

☭proletarian☭;2037103 said:
Once again, dumbass, I ask you the question you're too scared to answer

☭proletarian☭;2036638 said:
If the people have the strength of will and can force the Congress to vote for separating then all the more power to them. Failing that they have to resort to armed conflict.

Do they have a right to do so?

The people always have the right to raise up under arms and revolt. Which is what they would have to do unless CONGRESS agrees to let a State leave the Union.
 
Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.

Just so you know , King George III also told the colonists that they couldn't secede from England.

Fuck him and Scalia.

Neither law nor history nor logic support the conflation of revolution in 1775 with secession in 1860. The south spit in the face of the patriots of 1775, the south fired on Old Glory. The south was judged righteously by history and trampled into the dust by the United States. Thus die would-be tyrants, such as the southerners in 1865. Rightfully so.
 
☭proletarian☭;2036940 said:
And if a State can not get Congress to agree to let them leave the Union they can always resort to force of Arms. Because that will be their only choice to leave. People and States can not selectively ignore Federal dictate or law, especially when it is Constitutional.

The Supreme Court rules on what is and is not Constitutional and in 1869 they ruled that a State can not unilaterally leave the Union. It requires the consent of the rest of the States.


Again, the FF would have disagreed.

After all, we didn't ask the rest of the Empire for permission to tell the Crown to fuck off.

The right to self determination overrules any law any State might declare.

The FF would have told you, Proletarian, to shut up, that you did not represent their beliefs correctly at all.
Really? So they did get permission to leave?

Then what was that whole war about?!
 
☭proletarian☭;2037103 said:
Once again, dumbass, I ask you the question you're too scared to answer

☭proletarian☭;2036638 said:
Do they have a right to do so?

The people always have the right to raise up under arms and revolt.


So finally, after this whole thread and all your sad name-calling....


you agree with what I've been saying this whole time.
 
The south spit in the face of the patriots of 1775, the south fired on Old Glory.
The rebels spit in the face of the King and God almighty, who places all kings upon their thrones; they fired on the Crown.
 
☭proletarian☭;2037569 said:
☭proletarian☭;2037103 said:
Once again, dumbass, I ask you the question you're too scared to answer

The people always have the right to raise up under arms and revolt.


So finally, after this whole thread and all your sad name-calling....


you agree with what I've been saying this whole time.

I have always agreed that REVOLUTION is a means to regime change. You keep claiming States can just leave when ever they feel like it. And I repeat that only happens one of 2 ways... Armed rebellion or because Congress agrees to let them leave.
 
☭proletarian☭;2037569 said:
The people always have the right to raise up under arms and revolt.


So finally, after this whole thread and all your sad name-calling....


you agree with what I've been saying this whole time.

I have always agreed that REVOLUTION is a means to regime change. You keep claiming States can just leave when ever they feel like it. And I repeat that only happens one of 2 ways... Armed rebellion or because Congress agrees to let them leave.

Or, a third way: They make their State Declaration of Independence, and the remaining "Union," under waffling "leadership," decides not to do anything about it.

I ask again, in that light: if Texas (for example) were to decide that they were through with the Union and declared that they were once again an independent Republic, does anybody here really and honestly believe that President Obama would send in troops to quell the rebellion?

I have thought about it and I can't say I believe that for one minute.
 
Proletarian equates rebellion with secession. They are certainly not the same thing, and his twisted attempts to redefine the tems has fallen flat. RGS has the better of him, and Proletarian is merely demonstrating an immoral stubborness, an intellectual bulemia, that stunts his growth. Let's move on.
 
Proletarian equates rebellion with secession.

Rebellion is secession from a power which refuses to let the People go freely.

Take the FF. They tried to leave the peaceable way (secession). When the Crown didn't let that happened, they fought for their freedom (rebellion).
 
How can RGS have the better of me when he just repeats what I said 2 pages before him and acts like he's making a point against me?
 
New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

The right of a state to secede from the nation is way outside my personal injury wheelhouse. But it has become a source of conversation on professorial and political blogs, and the concept has generated interest from the Tea Party movement.

As it happens, my brother has a letter from Justice Antonin Scalia that is directly on point as to the legitimacy of secession. How he got that letter, and its contents, are the subject of today's post.

The inspiration for writing, and the release of the letter, comes from Prof. Eugene Volokh, who wrote, "I keep hearing the claim that the legitimacy of secession from the U.S. was 'settled at Appomattox,' and I wanted to say a few words about why I think that makes little sense."

Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that even people who sit on the supreme court are subject to the temptations of power? Would you come to a conclusion that a state can leave if you were a part of the supreme court of the federal government? We seem to assume that people who sit on the supreme court are immune from those temptations.
 
☭proletarian☭;2035530 said:
New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.


So much for that consent of the governed and the tree of liberty.


Someone dig up Washington and let him know Scalia has a few words for him about seceding from the British Empire.

If the people have the strength of will and can force the Congress to vote for separating then all the more power to them. Failing that they have to resort to armed conflict.

Post number 10. I said since the beginning that if you want to resort to armed rebellion you can change your country if you win. Dumb ass.
 
No reputable historian equates the War of Independence with the Civil War. The first was a revolution, the second was armed agression against the national government and the union by a minority section of the country that refused to accept the constitutional and electoral process. The dumb asses elected to go to hell in a handbasket and arrived there almost four years to the day thereafter.
 
No reputable historian equates the War of Independence with the Civil War. The first was a revolution

No, it wasn't. The Crown was never overthrown, nor was that the intention. It was a war for independence.
, the second was armed agression against the national government and the union by a minority section of the country

Actually, it was a war for independence. It wasn't a civil war because they weren't fighting over control of the Union. They wanted to be their own nation and leave the rest of the union to do as they pleased. That makes it also a war of independence.

Same thing.
 
☭proletarian☭;2051847 said:
No reputable historian equates the War of Independence with the Civil War. The first was a revolution

No, it wasn't. The Crown was never overthrown, nor was that the intention. It was a war for independence.
, the second was armed agression against the national government and the union by a minority section of the country

Actually, it was a war for independence. It wasn't a civil war because they weren't fighting over control of the Union. They wanted to be their own nation and leave the rest of the union to do as they pleased. That makes it also a war of independence.

Same thing.

The South started the war. Your claim is absurd on its face.
 
The colonies also started the war. What's your point?
 
☭proletarian☭;2052085 said:
The colonies also started the war. What's your point?

Actually the British fired the first shot. When they murdered 80 militia that did not fire on them. You may want to get your facts straight.
 
Was that before or after attacks on tax collectors and other people working for the Crown became commonplace? Was it before or after the riots and destruction of property owned by loyalists and the Crown?


Funny, too, how you call them militia- were they authorized by the Crown? No? Then they could only be insurgents/rebels. Were they armed? If so, then they were a rebellious army.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
☭proletarian☭;2052103 said:
Was that before or after attacks on tax collectors and other people working for the Crown became commonplace? Was it before or after the riots and destruction of property owned by loyalists and the Crown?


Funny, too, how you call them militia- were they authorized by the Crown? No? Then they could only be insurgents/rebels. Were they armed? If so, then they were a rebellious army.

I suggest you get a refund from whom ever claimed to have taught you about the American Revolution.
 
I suggest you get a refund from whoever taught you English. It's interesting, the way you praise one group of rebels and condemn another for doing the exact same thing. Why is that? Perhaps you have no principles and you merely parrot the rhetoric the victors taught you when you were brainwashed as a child.
 

Forum List

Back
Top