...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

What the war did was settle the issue, even the Supreme Court recognizes that.

Another thing, technically it did change the Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a direct result of the Civil War.

Just saying.

If it didn't change the Constitution then all the war did was kill people. Might doesn't make right. And I was referring to the issue of secession. The Constitution was never amended to make secession illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

don't argue with "the lawyer" "Ivy League I think" she knows everything! Jeez.

I covered that in my forst post on the board.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.

Too bad everyone who has ever served on the court does not understand that simple truth.

 

[Liberty]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

 

[Kalam]

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Texas v. White
​

Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

 

[Dr Grump]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

Because ya know, when they seceded they didn't think a war would occur, did they?

 

[jillian]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

that's what happens when people commit treason

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Texas v. White
​

Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.

Of course, if the Articles of Confederation were "perpetual" we'd still have them wouldn't we?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

Because ya know, when they seceded they didn't think a war would occur, did they?

I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?

 

[jillian]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

that's what happens when people commit treason

The Constitution defines treason thusly:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds a lot like what Lincoln did. So who was really guilty of treason? And note that "seceding from the Union" is conspicuous only by its absence in the constitutional definition of treason.

 

[Liberty]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

That is not law then I suppose, since no amendment makes succession illegal or no law was created that made it illegal? It was just some court saying it, not putting it "on the books" as law of the land?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.

The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.

 

[Liberty]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

that's what happens when people commit treason

treason created this country, just fyi.

 

[Kalam]

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?

Read. Secession was a nullity because it could not legally occur.

Texas v. White

That's not exactly the sentiment that was expressed in Williams v. Bruffy (1877), though:

"...De facto governments of two kinds considered: 1. Such as exists after it has expelled the regularly constituted authorities from the seats of power and the public offices and established its own functionaries in their places so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of the nation. As far as other nations are concerned, such a government is treated as in most respects possessing rightful authority; its contracts and treaties are usually enforced; its acquisitions are retained; its legislation is in general recognized; and the rights acquired under it are, with few exceptions, respected after the restoration of the authorities which were expelled. 2. Such as exists where a portion of the inhabitants of a country have separated themselves from the parent state and established an independent government. The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."

WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

That is not law then I suppose, since no amendment makes succession illegal or no law was created that made it illegal? It was just some court saying it, not putting it "on the books" as law of the land?

Of course. As I said, the Court was simply trying to justify Lincoln's actions during the war.

 

[Liberty]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

that's what happens when people commit treason

The Constitution defines treason thusly:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds a lot like what Lincoln did. So who was really guilty of treason? And note that "seceding from the Union" is conspicuous only by its absence in the constitutional definition of treason.

holy shit that is a great point!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?

Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?