Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.
Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.
 
I bet you don't even understand how that video unwittingly condemns Republicans. Just like you don't understand John Wilkes Booth was not a Democrat.
Yaah, we know, because Democrat of 1860 were really Republicans.

I'll be you don't understand how we know you're a fucking moron.
Spits the forum imbecile who thinks SC could unilatarally take away take back territory they ceded to the United States. :eusa_doh:

Of course they were southern Democrats then are southern Republicans now. You think you can magically change that?

258z9g1.jpg
There was no magical party switch you fucking idiot

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
Riiiight ... the election map lies, right? The northeast (and west coast) didn't really switch from Republican to Democrat. The south didn't really switch from Democrat to Republican. :rolleyes:
What it means is that the people votes for those who are pro American. The party didn't switch the people they just got smarter

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
You are insanely retarded. There really is no other explanation. The maps reveal the NE and west coast were once solidly Republican while the south, especially along the Bible belt, was solidly Democrat; but are now entirely reversed, with the exception of a couple of swing states which vary from one election to the next.

The reality you don't want to face is while parties have flipped, ideologies have not. The south, which has always been and still is more racist than the north -- has always been and still is more Conservative than the north.
 
Just taking a quick look at this thread and it is just as nutty as when I dropped out of it.
 
Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.
Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.
 
Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

Madison's opinion has no legal significance. You don't seem to get that.
 
Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

Madison's opinion has no legal significance. You don't seem to get that.
Bullshit. While the Supreme Court can weigh Madison's writings in rendering a decision in any relevant case, yours will never even be considered.

Why?

Because Madison was a key figure in the birth of this nation whereas you're nothing but an ass wart in cyberspace.
 
Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

Madison's opinion has no legal significance. You don't seem to get that.

On the contrary, Madison has been cited repeatedly by the courts in gleaning the intent of the constitution. Its your opinion that has no legal significance. Worse, you've cited Madison as a source, even calling him the 'father of the constitution' when you thought he supported you. Its only when he contradicts you that you dismiss him.

Demonstrating elegantly that you'll even ignore your own sources to believe what you wish.

What you have never managed to explain is why I or any other rational person should give a shit what you choose to believe. Remember, your 'conditional ratification' is imaginary bullshit that you made up. Your 'property vs. territory' distinction is imaginary bullshit that you made up. The 'right to secede' is never mentioned in the constitution nor affirmed in the constitutional congress. With secession violating the Supremacy Clause, having been rejected by James Madison himself as having nothing to do with the Constitution, and having been ruled nonsense by the Supreme Court.

Its just you...citing you. Which is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
BRIPAT9643 SAID:

“Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.”

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted, the Supremacy Clause is indeed part of the Constitution, it clearly authorizes the Federal courts to rule on matters concerning the Constitution, and clearly states that the rulings of the courts are the supreme law of the land – in this case Texas v. White, reaffirming the fact that it was never the intent of the Founding Generation to allow a state to 'secede' from the Union unilaterally.
 
BRIPAT9643 SAID:

“Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.”

Nonsense.

As already correctly noted, the Supremacy Clause is indeed part of the Constitution, it clearly authorizes the Federal courts to rule on matters concerning the Constitution, and clearly states that the rulings of the courts are the supreme law of the land – in this case Texas v. White, reaffirming the fact that it was never the intent of the Founding Generation to allow a state to 'secede' from the Union unilaterally.

Really.....you people want to play both sides.

If you wanted to go by intent...then things would be a lot different.

There was no reaffirmation.....although the SCOTUS would hide behind that.

They just made it up....and decided it sounded nice.
 
Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

You made the assertion first...you should show your writings first. I didnt say I had any writings...I am going by the commonly taught history, at least as I remember it, that Jefferson and Madison encouraged at least the threat of secession over the alien and sedition acts.
 
Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

You made the assertion first...you should show your writings first. I didnt say I had any writings...I am going by the commonly taught history, at least as I remember it, that Jefferson and Madison encouraged at least the threat of secession over the alien and sedition acts.

Your assertion is that I'm wrong on Madison.

Show me.
 
I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

You made the assertion first...you should show your writings first. I didnt say I had any writings...I am going by the commonly taught history, at least as I remember it, that Jefferson and Madison encouraged at least the threat of secession over the alien and sedition acts.

Your assertion is that I'm wrong on Madison.

Show me.

like I said.....you made the assertion first...show the writings........

my recent reading has shown some thought Jefferson went further than Madison in this regard, ...perhaps. Madison was a fence sitter.

The declaration of independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

earlier "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

but even before a government gets really bad, I think it common sense that if you vote to get in....you should be able to vote to get out.
 
I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.

You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

You made the assertion first...you should show your writings first. I didnt say I had any writings...I am going by the commonly taught history, at least as I remember it, that Jefferson and Madison encouraged at least the threat of secession over the alien and sedition acts.

Your assertion is that I'm wrong on Madison.

Show me.

like I said.....you made the assertion first...show the writings........

Your assertion was that I got Madison wrong.

I've invited you to show me half a dozen times now. You've presented nothing. You make vague reference to your 'recent readings', but won't tell us what they are.

When and if you can, feel free to share.

my recent reading has shown some thought Jefferson went further than Madison in this regard, ...perhaps. Madison was a fence sitter.

The declaration of independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

earlier "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

but even before a government gets really bad, I think it common sense that if you vote to get in....you should be able to vote to get out.

In terms of the meaning of the constitutions, Jefferson's functionally irrelevant. He wrote none of the Federalist Papers, didn't represent a state as a delegate to the constitutional convention, didn't attend a single session of the constitutional convention in any capacity, wrote no part of the constitution, and wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written.

Rendering Jefferson's perspective one of the worst you can cite when trying to glean the intent of the framers in the writing of the constitution. Jefferson simply wasn't there.
 
You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.

Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

You made the assertion first...you should show your writings first. I didnt say I had any writings...I am going by the commonly taught history, at least as I remember it, that Jefferson and Madison encouraged at least the threat of secession over the alien and sedition acts.

Your assertion is that I'm wrong on Madison.

Show me.

like I said.....you made the assertion first...show the writings........

Your assertion was that I got Madison wrong.

I've invited you to show me half a dozen times now. You've presented nothing. You make vague reference to your 'recent readings', but won't tell us what they are.

When and if you can, feel free to share.

my recent reading has shown some thought Jefferson went further than Madison in this regard, ...perhaps. Madison was a fence sitter.

The declaration of independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

earlier "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

but even before a government gets really bad, I think it common sense that if you vote to get in....you should be able to vote to get out.

In terms of the meaning of the constitutions, Jefferson's functionally irrelevant. He wrote none of the Federalist Papers, didn't represent a state as a delegate to the constitutional convention, didn't attend a single session of the constitutional convention in any capacity, wrote no part of the constitution, and wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written.

Rendering Jefferson's perspective one of the worst you can cite when trying to glean the intent of the framers in the writing of the constitution. Jefferson simply wasn't there.

yes, you are a parrot, repeating the same old arguments time and time again...I answered you that you should post supporting evidence for your claim on Madison.... it seems you made it up

Jefferson is actually far more relevant than Madison. Even within the Federalist (which should be irrelevant as it wasnt widely read even in its day.) Madison hedges his opinions. Most historians think he later had a change of heart as he conceded to Jefferson's leadership and wisdom. Jefferson was probably save maybe Patrick Henry, the closest of the famous founders to the people as a whole and their opinion.....which is or should be, after all, the base and foundation of all just nations, and certainly is of ours. As I pointed out earlier....appeal to We the people is the only real way the Constitution can be justified at all.....as it broke the law of the Articles to be passed.
 
Show us the writings 'you've seen'. I'll gladly counter them with much better quotes from Madison. He did not believe in secession. Nor did he ever advocate it.

You made the assertion first...you should show your writings first. I didnt say I had any writings...I am going by the commonly taught history, at least as I remember it, that Jefferson and Madison encouraged at least the threat of secession over the alien and sedition acts.

Your assertion is that I'm wrong on Madison.

Show me.

like I said.....you made the assertion first...show the writings........

Your assertion was that I got Madison wrong.

I've invited you to show me half a dozen times now. You've presented nothing. You make vague reference to your 'recent readings', but won't tell us what they are.

When and if you can, feel free to share.

my recent reading has shown some thought Jefferson went further than Madison in this regard, ...perhaps. Madison was a fence sitter.

The declaration of independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

earlier "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

but even before a government gets really bad, I think it common sense that if you vote to get in....you should be able to vote to get out.

In terms of the meaning of the constitutions, Jefferson's functionally irrelevant. He wrote none of the Federalist Papers, didn't represent a state as a delegate to the constitutional convention, didn't attend a single session of the constitutional convention in any capacity, wrote no part of the constitution, and wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written.

Rendering Jefferson's perspective one of the worst you can cite when trying to glean the intent of the framers in the writing of the constitution. Jefferson simply wasn't there.

yes, you are a parrot, repeating the same old arguments time and time again

"yes, you are a parrot, repeating the same old arguments time and time again"

BINGO!

Then he'll tell the forum about how he whipped all the Lincoln critics.
 
Well, either the Constitution is accepted as legal and the Perpetual Union was continued, since nothing says differently just as it doesn't say secession is illegal, or the Constitution was/is illegal and, really, the original Articles are the basis for the Union and it is Perpetual.
 
Last edited:
Well, either the Constitution is accepted as legal and the Perpetual Union was continued, since nothing says differently just as it doesn't say secession is illegal, or the Constitution was/is illegal and, really, the original Articles are the basis for the Union and it is Perpetual.

The Constitution says differently, moron. It doesn't mention any "perpetual union." Your claim that one thing must be tied to the other is also false.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top