Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2011
169,990
47,199
2,180
Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”
 
There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.
 
Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

There is no "again." Go ahead, start the "ass kicking."
Yeah right
10432116_776100709175949_5433336540448099126_n.jpg
 
"Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession"

The ‘arguments’ are easily and comprehensively refuted by settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – that one state may not leave the Union without the consent of the other 49 states. (Texas v. White)

Otherwise, the notion of ‘secession’ is unwarranted, inane, and completely devoid of merit.
 
When the Constitution is abrogated by the federal government, the national agreement - like any contract - is void, and the signatories have the right to seek other agreements. The abrogating agent simply by making a new law does not amend the Constitution, nor do arbitrary decisions by a sitting court.

That being academic, of course.

""Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mousey Dung
 
There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

I just proved there is, dumbass.

Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
 
"Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession"

The ‘arguments’ are easily and comprehensively refuted by settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – that one state may not leave the Union without the consent of the other 49 states. (Texas v. White)

Otherwise, the notion of ‘secession’ is unwarranted, inane, and completely devoid of merit.

ROFL! That joke of a decision doesn't refute anything accept the honesty and integrity of the court.
 
Isn't it interesting that libs would be all for the democratic process of territories joining the union, but once these territories became states, these same libs would then call the citizens traitors if they wanted to use the same democratic process of dissolving their relationship with the union.

That reminds me libs, are the thousands of hawaiians that are working right as we speak to gain independence from the union, traitors ?
 
Isn't it interesting that libs would be all for the democratic process of territories joining the union, but once these territories became states, these same libs would then call the citizens traitors if they wanted to use the same democratic process of dissolving their relationship with the union.

That reminds me libs, are the thousands of hawaiians that are working right as we speak to gain independence from the union, traitors ?

What about the Scots? Should England declare war on Scotland if it decides to secede from the UK?
 
Isn't it interesting that libs would be all for the democratic process of territories joining the union, but once these territories became states, these same libs would then call the citizens traitors if they wanted to use the same democratic process of dissolving their relationship with the union.

That reminds me libs, are the thousands of hawaiians that are working right as we speak to gain independence from the union, traitors ?

The Lincoln cult seems to be steering clear of this. I suspect they are furiously doing research because they have been caught flat footed.
 
According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.”
.
Professor H Newcomb Morse
- - just another states rights charlatan ...


those same people were for slavery ... that's why there is a national gov't, to keep an immoral aberration of a few from circumventing what is for the greater good for all.

.
 
There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

I just proved there is, dumbass.

Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.
Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.
 
Isn't it interesting that libs would be all for the democratic process of territories joining the union, but once these territories became states, these same libs would then call the citizens traitors if they wanted to use the same democratic process of dissolving their relationship with the union.

That reminds me libs, are the thousands of hawaiians that are working right as we speak to gain independence from the union, traitors ?

What about the Scots? Should England declare war on Scotland if it decides to secede from the UK?

Apparently liberals would have been all for it had the vote went in favor of a free and independent Scotland.
 
"Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession"

The ‘arguments’ are easily and comprehensively refuted by settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – that one state may not leave the Union without the consent of the other 49 states. (Texas v. White)

Otherwise, the notion of ‘secession’ is unwarranted, inane, and completely devoid of merit.

ROFL! That joke of a decision doesn't refute anything accept the honesty and integrity of the court.

Kind of an angry sibling squierer, ain't ya?

Of which of the gimmie states on this list are you the proud son?

20110806_WOC321.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top