Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

Their big guns prove there is no right to secede, they are Soviet style tyrants willing to impose their rule on their own people with force because they can

That's liberal morality for you: We're right because we have the guns!

The only liberal here is you you fucking idiot. You are the one supporting democrats not I . Not only that but you support slavery.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Finally you got one right. We are classic liberals, you are a totalitarian leftist who kills people when they don't submit to your tyranny, then blames them for not bowing to the guns you use to coerce them

No you are a progressive th at hates his own country and less then scum

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

How do you even justify in your own mind forcing people who don't want to be in your Stalinist State to remain?

It's hard to comprehend what goes on in the minds of these Lincoln cultists.

 

[my2¢]

You've made me look at things from another view but I still don't buy your premise that the South didn't start hostilities by firing upon Fort Sumter. References?

On April 12, 1861, Confederates opened fire on Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor, unleashing what historians have said was the longest bombardment in the history of the western hemisphere. Artillery battered the fort for thirty-four consecutive hours before Major Robert Anderson and his Union forces surrendered
This time the foe is corrosion research and creative discovery Clemson University
.

 

[Contumacious]

Supreme Court, in 1862

"It is not the less a civil war, with belligerent parties in hostile array, because it may be called an 'insurrection' by one side, and the insurgents be considered as rebels or traitors. It is not necessary that the independence of the revolted province or State be acknowledged in order to constitute it a party belligerent in a war according to the law of nations." [62 US 635, 669]

BULLSHIT

"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect.


THOMAS JEFFERSON

 

[there4eyeM]

Yes, the states voluntarily joined in Perpetual Union, and that was continued with the adoption of the new constitution that was written to improve the situation.
There is no legal method to unilaterally withdraw from a Perpetual Union.

 

[bripat9643]

You've made me look at things from another view but I still don't buy your premise that the South didn't start hostilities by firing upon Fort Sumter. References?

On April 12, 1861, Confederates opened fire on Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor, unleashing what historians have said was the longest bombardment in the history of the western hemisphere. Artillery battered the fort for thirty-four consecutive hours before Major Robert Anderson and his Union forces surrendered
This time the foe is corrosion research and creative discovery Clemson University
.

No one is disputing the fact that General Beauregard fired on Ft Sumter. The issue under debate is whether that was a justification for Lincoln to invade Virginia. It wasn't.

 

[kaz]

I would be saying I don't want to submit to your tyranny, I wouldn't be doing anything to you. You'd be saying that I will submit to your tyranny and aim a gun at me. Then when I don't succumb and you shoot, that's me starting the war? I'm starting a war because I want to no longer submit to your rule. You are ... full ... of ... shit. Your desire to conquer me is on you, Holmes

What the fuck did you think the Declaration of Independence was? It was a declaration of war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

It told the British to fuck off. The British started a war by trying to stop us

No it was a declaration of war. And if we would have lost the UK would have been brutal. Lucky for us the French were there to help us

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Did you read that in a history picture book with Mickey Mouse playing George Washington?

Sad how stupid you are

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You're the one with the cartoon level knowledge of history

 

[kaz]

Yes, the states voluntarily joined in Perpetual Union, and that was continued with the adoption of the new constitution that was written to improve the situation.
There is no legal method to unilaterally withdraw from a Perpetual Union.

Begging the question, where did they agree to join a "perpetual" union?

 

[there4eyeM]

When did it ever stop?

 

[bripat9643]

When did it ever stop?

You've been told 1001 times already.

 

[kaz]

When did it ever stop?

When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. That was an easy one. Wow, 43 pages and finally you have your answer now. So States can secede, thanks!

 

[paperview]

Go ahead and try it -- or be known as a pussycoward.

DO IT! Stop flapping your snot-pasted gums. DO IT!

Let us know how it all works out.

 

[kaz]

Go ahead and try it -- or be known as a pussycoward.

DO IT! Stop flapping your snot-pasted gums. DO IT!

Let us know how it all works out.

So you don't think anything should be legal except things that you want to do or you're a "pussycoward." That's your standard. You want to do it, or it should be illegal. This ... is why I keep pointing out you're an authoritarian leftist

 

[there4eyeM]

When did it ever stop?

When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. That was an easy one. Wow, 43 pages and finally you have your answer now. So States can secede, thanks!

This opinion has been stated previously. No factual evidence that it is true has been provided despite the number of times it has been presented. No such clear break was made. The Union continued, Perpetual. Thus, secession as it was attempted was and is illegal. The uprising was put down as any rebellion would be, naturally.

 

[kaz]

When did it ever stop?

When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. That was an easy one. Wow, 43 pages and finally you have your answer now. So States can secede, thanks!

Link showing where this is formally stated?

You need to show the Articles of Confederation are in force since it's your argument, I don't need to show they are not. They were replaced by the Constitution. And clearly no one but the original 13 ever agreed to the Articles of Confederation at all. So what is your argument they are still in force based on?

 

[dcraelin]

When did it ever stop?

When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. That was an easy one. Wow, 43 pages and finally you have your answer now. So States can secede, thanks!

Link showing where this is formally stated?

You need to show the Articles of Confederation are in force since it's your argument, I don't need to show they are not. They were replaced by the Constitution. And clearly no one but the original 13 ever agreed to the Articles of Confederation at all. So what is your argument they are still in force based on?

I believe the Articles state they couldnt be changed unless by the consent of all the states. The Constitution permitted its formation based on only 9 states,..which broke the law of the articles.....this can only be justified by the "we the people" clause....the people as a whole have the superior power. Democracy.

 

[there4eyeM]

...and continued Perpetual Union.

 

[kaz]

When did it ever stop?

When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. That was an easy one. Wow, 43 pages and finally you have your answer now. So States can secede, thanks!

Link showing where this is formally stated?

You need to show the Articles of Confederation are in force since it's your argument, I don't need to show they are not. They were replaced by the Constitution. And clearly no one but the original 13 ever agreed to the Articles of Confederation at all. So what is your argument they are still in force based on?

I believe the Articles state they couldnt be changed unless by the consent of all the states. The Constitution permitted its formation based on only 9 states,..which broke the law of the articles.....this can only be justified by the "we the people" clause....the people as a whole have the superior power. Democracy.

I'm not sure what you're arguing

 

[kaz]

...and continued Perpetual Union.

What is your argument the Articles of Confederation are still in force based on?

 

[there4eyeM]

When and where is it stated that the Perpetual Union, that the Constitution was created in order to make 'more perfect', was no more?
Secessionists eagerly point out that the Constitution does not expressly forbid unilateral separation. They refuse to concede that the Perpetual Union has no mention of being repudiated.

 

[dcraelin]

When did it ever stop?

When we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. That was an easy one. Wow, 43 pages and finally you have your answer now. So States can secede, thanks!

Link showing where this is formally stated?

You need to show the Articles of Confederation are in force since it's your argument, I don't need to show they are not. They were replaced by the Constitution. And clearly no one but the original 13 ever agreed to the Articles of Confederation at all. So what is your argument they are still in force based on?

I believe the Articles state they couldnt be changed unless by the consent of all the states. The Constitution permitted its formation based on only 9 states,..which broke the law of the articles.....this can only be justified by the "we the people" clause....the people as a whole have the superior power. Democracy.

I'm not sure what you're arguing

Well, in part that the Constitution is only quasi legal, especially by the standards of the law that was in place at its formation.
The ARTICLES could only be changed by appealing to "we the people" i.e. democracy/pure Republicanism. It is the only justification for the change.

As for the right to secede...I kind of think it is a right.....especially if a majority vote of all the states citizens agree that is something they want.