It’s Constitutional

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fucking idiots.

can you say who is an idiot and why?? or is it just a strong liberal feeling??

See why we say a liberal will be slow?

 

[paperview]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

don't know??? please give your best example for the whole world to see or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

why not show us best example?

You seriously need to be shown examples that

"ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional."

Seriously?

dear, we were not talking about what every liberal legal scholar would say, but rather what many libertarians like Jefferson would say.

I posted the direct words out of the Constitution. I even made the relevant part red. Are you blind, stupid or both? The Constitution specifically states that in ANY dispute between the States or ANY dispute involving the Federal Government the Supreme Court has Jurisdiction. ANY ruling they make in such a case becomes CONSTITUTIONAL and binding until such time as the Congress negates the ruling by Amendment or new laws that render the verdict moot or another case comes before the Court and it rules differently.

The claim that a State may leave the US unilaterally is Constitutional is simple not true and I provided the relevant portion of the Constitution to prove it. The relevant portion does not even involve a need to believe or disbelieve that the Court arbitrates all Constitutional matters.

So I repeat? Are you blind? Did you miss it? Or are you just to stupid to understand the written word?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

since states are sovereign they have a more or less automatic right to seceed from the confederation. If not how would the states protect themselves from an abusive federal government? How can a person be free without this ability to walk away?

You are wrong legally and Constitutionally. Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid. The Supreme Court is recognized since 1804 as the final arbitrator on Constitutional Issues. Further the Constitution specifically States it is the final Court for the Government. It controls all cases between the States and the US Government. As stated IN the Constitution.

In 1869 the Supreme Court stated that a State may not unilaterally leave the Union. The only legal means to depart is via an act of Congress. This means that CONSTITUTIONALLY a State has no right to leave EXCEPT via a CONGRESSIONAL action.

Article III Section II

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Any LEGAL action between different States is the sole original judicial authority of the Supreme Court. Since a State wishing to leave and doing so Unilaterally would be a legal action between that State or States and the Remaining States via the federal Government, The Supreme Court in fact has the power to rule on such an event irregardless of the right to arbitrate the meaning of the Constitution.

Such a case has only occurred once and the Supreme Court ruled that a State may NOT unilaterally leave and must seek approval for such an action from Congress.

So even though you do not recognize the right of Judicial review of the meaning of the Constitution the Constitution CLEARLY States that the Supreme Court has the legal right to adjudicate cases between the States. Case closed.

Here it is again just for you. In plain English and quoted directly from the Constitution, with no amendment involved and no need to believe in the right of the Court to determine all Constitutional matters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong you and he both claimed it was absolutely Constitutional to unilaterally leave the Union.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

You further claimed directly that the Supreme Court had no say in the matter. The Constitution is clear as day. ANY dispute between a State and the federal Government is the Supreme Courts AUTHORITY. Any decision made by that Court means until overturned that decision IS Constitutional.

yes based on our understanding of the Constitution

I just re-quoted the relevant passage directly from the Constitution. It is clear and concise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You claim Jefferson would disagree. Based on what? Was he not involved in writing the Constitution? Did he not allow the Court to establish it is the final arbitrator on the matter of what is and what is NOT Constitutional?

 

[Toro]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's absolutely bizarre that some people think the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over legal issues.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here it is again just for you.

Let me help you out dear. I say a proper reading of the founding documents would make secession legal while you say the extant reading makes it illegal. Is that too subtle for you to understand?

You're pretending the extant version is sacrosanct when our Founders violated the then sacrosanct documents to impose the current extant documents. In fact the current version is no more sacrosanct than the one the founders violated. Way over your head -right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here it is again just for you.

Let me help you out dear. I say a proper reading of the founding documents would make secession legal while you say the extant reading makes it illegal. Is that too subtle for you to understand?

You're pretending the extant version is sacrosanct when our Founders violated the then sacrosanct documents to impose the current extant documents. In fact the current version is no more sacrosanct than the one the founders violated. Way over your head -right?

Moron. So you admit you are just to damn stupid to understand the written word. Thanks I can ignore you now unless I wanna point out your ignorant drivel every now and again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's absolutely bizarre that some people think the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over legal issues.

For many on the far right and libertarians this is their only recourse: to reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, impugn the Court’s interpretive authority, and reject Constitutional jurisprudence in its entirety, where everything stops in 1791.

It’s as sad as it is bizarre.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's absolutely bizarre that some people think the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over legal issues.

For many on the far right and libertarians this is their only recourse: to reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, impugn the Court’s interpretive authority, and reject Constitutional jurisprudence in its entirety, where everything stops in 1791.

It’s as sad as it is bizarre.

The Court was acting in direct support of what is written in the Constitution. One does not have to believe or disbelieve that the Court has Judicial review on Constitutional matters to understand THIS case is supported by the written Constitution. Article III is clear section II is not even up for debate on what it says.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's absolutely bizarre that some people think the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over legal issues.

For many on the far right and libertarians this is their only recourse: to reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, impugn the Court’s interpretive authority, and reject Constitutional jurisprudence in its entirety, where everything stops in 1791.

It’s as sad as it is bizarre.

its wonderful and logical the way Scalia and the other 3 disagree. Scalia loves to point out that if Constitution has said, this document can be read any way you want, it never would have gotten one single vote. Yet, our treasonous liberals are quite happy to read it any way they want.

THey have to do that otherwise they have no place in American with their communist views.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's absolutely bizarre that some people think the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over legal issues.

For many on the far right and libertarians this is their only recourse: to reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, impugn the Court’s interpretive authority, and reject Constitutional jurisprudence in its entirety, where everything stops in 1791.

It’s as sad as it is bizarre.

its wonderful and logical the way Scalia and the other 3 disagree. Scalia loves to point out that if Constitution has said, this document can be read any way you want, it never would have gotten one single vote. Yet, our treasonous liberals are quite happy to read it any way they want.

THey have to do that otherwise they have no place in American with their communist views.

Well. Scalia at least acknowledges Marbury, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden as settled law.

 

[jtpr312]

You claim Jefferson would disagree. Based on what? Was he not involved in writing the Constitution? Did he not allow the Court to establish it is the final arbitrator on the matter of what is and what is NOT Constitutional?

Jefferson did NOT allow, nor want, the nine whores in DC to be the final arbitors of what the Constitution means, and as a matter of fact stated that if we allowesd that to happen we would no longer live in a free Republic, but would live in an oligarchy ruled by those very whores.

 

[PratchettFan]

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

since states are sovereign they have a more or less automatic right to seceed from the confederation. If not how would the states protect themselves from an abusive federal government? How can a person be free without this ability to walk away?

So, you can't name a single state either. I shall continue to wait.

 

[PratchettFan]

You are wrong legally and Constitutionally.

1) you forgot to say what I was wrong about, exactly.

2) dear, the south seceeded. The only thing that stopped them was the north's superior military. Had the south won the law and Constitution would have been on their side.


3) the colonies had no right to seceed legally or Constitutionally granted to them by the party that wanted them as subjects, obviously, but this did not stop them did it?????

I'm not sure I understand your point. It is illegal to commit murder but people do commit murder. Are you saying that means it really isn't illegal?

 

[jtpr312]

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

since states are sovereign they have a more or less automatic right to seceed from the confederation. If not how would the states protect themselves from an abusive federal government? How can a person be free without this ability to walk away?

So, you can't name a single state either. I shall continue to wait.

Virginia and the Crisis of Union
On February 13, 1861, delegates representing all counties in Virginia met to decide how the state would respond to recent events, especially Abraham Lincoln's election and South Carolina's secession. They voted to remain in the Union and hoped that a compromise could be reached to defuse the situation. Two months later, the same men voted to secede from the United States, sparking a radically different war than might otherwise have taken place. Secession: Virginia and the Crisis of Union links the fully transcribed text of these debates with a wealth of contextual information, giving users the tools to ask why the men who brought the war into their own counties and neighborhoods did so.

http://http://collections.richmond.edu/secession/

 

[PratchettFan]

I have no patience for adolescents who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

It's absolutely bizarre that some people think the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over legal issues.

For many on the far right and libertarians this is their only recourse: to reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, impugn the Court’s interpretive authority, and reject Constitutional jurisprudence in its entirety, where everything stops in 1791.

It’s as sad as it is bizarre.

It is also irrelevant, and that might be the reason for the frustration. They can believe what they like and express what they believe, but that changes not a thing. The SC has the authority not just because the Constitution gives the Court the authority but also because the nation gives them the authority. Both the Congress and the President acknowledge that authority. The military and local authorities acknowledge that authority. So any little group who does not is free to do as they please, so long as they don't attempt put that into action which is against the law.

There are probably lots of people in jail who do not acknowledge the authority of the government to put them there. But that doesn't make the bars go away.

 

[PratchettFan]

since states are sovereign they have a more or less automatic right to seceed from the confederation. If not how would the states protect themselves from an abusive federal government? How can a person be free without this ability to walk away?

So, you can't name a single state either. I shall continue to wait.

Virginia and the Crisis of Union
On February 13, 1861, delegates representing all counties in Virginia met to decide how the state would respond to recent events, especially Abraham Lincoln's election and South Carolina's secession. They voted to remain in the Union and hoped that a compromise could be reached to defuse the situation. Two months later, the same men voted to secede from the United States, sparking a radically different war than might otherwise have taken place. Secession: Virginia and the Crisis of Union links the fully transcribed text of these debates with a wealth of contextual information, giving users the tools to ask why the men who brought the war into their own counties and neighborhoods did so.

http://http://collections.richmond.edu/secession/

Yes. I live in Virginia and the last time I looked we were still in the US. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Now, if we can leave the fantasy world for just a bit, what state is currently looking at secession? I don't mean what states have small groups of John Wayne wannabe's masturbating to the idea of secession, I mean what state government is doing it. Really, just a committee to explore the option will do.