It’s Constitutional

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

I don't give a crap what some bought and paid for judge says, the FACT is that the Constitution makes NO mention of secession at all so it's not a matter for the 9 whores in DC to decide anyway. The FACT is that NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless their right to leave the union, at their discretion, was maintained, NO DENIAL of this was ever made, therefore their right to secede was and is valid and a right granted one state automatically goes to ALL states. And I never said I know better, I just gave you the historical facts from the actual poeple who where there, and the supporting documentation from the Virgninia delagation, which was introduced and passed by resolution PRIOR to them ever ratifying the Constitution. The opinion of the nine whore is irelevent as I don't recognize their right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional anyway as the Constitution DOES NOT give them that right, they usurped that right in Madison vs Marbury. The Constitutionality of law was and is given, by the Constitution, to the people, NOT to any supreme court and Thomas Jefferson warned us of what would happen if we ever allowed the court to usurp the power of "We the People", as represented by the Congress.

Thomas Jefferson
to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."







The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. 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.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution
http://http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
 
Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

You’ll understand why everyone will accept the statement of a sitting associate Supreme Court justice over that of you, an anonymous internet poster.
 
Madison's Letter To Hamiltion The Constitution "in toto and 'for ever"


Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification.

James Madison
 
Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people.
...
1. Yes it did. No it didn't, they DID secede, try reading a history book or two
2. No, the rebels did not legally secede. Yes, it was perfectly legal and Constitutional.
3. The South fired the first shots. That's right, the Cadets at the Citadel fired the first shots on Jan 9th, 1861, in self defense, against a union supply ship, the Star of the West, sent to reinforce the illegally held Fort Sumter.

4. "hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens" Oh God. :lol: The South loved the constitution so much they trashed the First Amendment and BANNED anti-slavery speech and prohibited the mails and newspapers from carrying any tracts or speech that was abolitionist in nature. They even put a GAG order on those filing petitions to Congress decades earlier, so slavery couldn't even be discussed in Congress. Yeah, that's Constitution loving... It is what it is. There have been and still are certain restraints on your 1st amendment rights, tough crap. The amendment at issue here is the 10th, not the 1st.

Not the least of which their entire philosophy on their way of life was centered around OWNING human beings, not allowing some four million out of their total nine million population from having ANY rights, no representation, and even denied citizenship. Freedom-loving my ass. Negroes weren't recognized by the US CONSTITUTION, or president lincoln for that matter, as being fully human or citizens of this nation.

Neo-confederates are such pompous, lying blowhards. You of course would recoginize a pompous blowhard seeing that you are so used to looking at one in the mirror every morning.
.
 
It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

I don't give a crap what some bought and paid for judge says, the FACT is that the Constitution makes NO mention of secession at all so it's not a matter for the 9 whores in DC to decide anyway. The FACT is that NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless their right to leave the union, at their discretion, was maintained, NO DENIAL of this was ever made, therefore their right to secede was and is valid and a right granted one state automatically goes to ALL states. And I never said I know better, I just gave you the historical facts from the actual poeple who where there, and the supporting documentation from the Virgninia delagation, which was introduced and passed by resolution PRIOR to them ever ratifying the Constitution. The opinion of the nine whore is irelevent as I don't recognize their right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional anyway as the Constitution DOES NOT give them that right, they usurped that right in Madison vs Marbury. The Constitutionality of law was and is given, by the Constitution, to the people, NOT to any supreme court and Thomas Jefferson warned us of what would happen if we ever allowed the court to usurp the power of "We the People", as represented by the Congress.

Thomas Jefferson
to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."







The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. 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.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution
http://http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Gee... thanks for your "analysis"...

again, i'll direct you to people who actually know what the constitution provides. given that you'd probably dismiss anyone people on the left respect, i'll direct your attention to that rightwingiest supreme court justice antonin scalia.

i'm pretty sure i'll take anyone's analysis over pretend constitutionalists'
 
jtpr312: In addition to all your posts being massively wrong, maybe you can smarten up some and learn how to use the quote function.

Stopping putting YOUR words in MY quotes.

Idiot.
 
Gee, what did this Patriotic American think of rebels?

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." -Samuel Adams, 1787
 
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and 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?


"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body.
And it was final.

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
"

Texas-v-White, 74 U.S.

152 years later, and that Supreme Court decision has held, and will continue to hold, because whether you or any other neo-confederate like it or not - live it, learn it, love it: Secession is illegal.
 
Why would I need to read it twice?

To paperview. Because my post included more than the text of Scalia’s letter. I did not expect you to read it, but you provided an opportunity to direct others who might be interested in #46 permalink on Page Two.
 
Gee, what did this Patriotic American think of rebels?

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." -Samuel Adams, 1787

To paperview: Since you enjoy quoting America’s Founders here’s a few you might not care for. Lincoln is the hypocrite referred to in the opening:


. . . that Supreme Court decision has held, and will continue to hold, because whether you or any other neo-confederate like it or not - live it, learn it, love it: Secession is illegal.

To paperview: The Czar might have stayed in power had his people told the Communists that revolution was illegal. Ditto the people who supported governments overthrown by Communists.

After acquiring the power the Communists turned out to be more brutal, more murderous, more tyrannical than the people they replaced AND IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS.

Constitutional or not will matter little when the American people have had enough of the Communists. The only thing that bothers me is knowing that the Communists will get a fairer shake than they ever gave anyone else. Were it up to Samuel Adams they would suffer death.
 
Gee, what did this Patriotic American think of rebels?

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." -Samuel Adams, 1787

To paperview: Since you enjoy quoting America’s Founders here’s a few you might not care for. Lincoln is the hypocrite referred to in the opening:


. . . that Supreme Court decision has held, and will continue to hold, because whether you or any other neo-confederate like it or not - live it, learn it, love it: Secession is illegal.

To paperview: The Czar might have stayed in power had his people told the Communists that revolution was illegal. Ditto the people who supported governments overthrown by Communists.

After acquiring the power the Communists turned out to be more brutal, more murderous, more tyrannical than the people they replaced AND IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS.

Constitutional or not will matter little when the American people have had enough of the Communists. The only thing that bothers me is knowing that the Communists will get a fairer shake than they ever gave anyone else. Were it up to Samuel Adams they would suffer death.

The law doesn’t work like politics.

In politics conservatives can repeat the same lie over and over again in the hope it’s perceived as true.

In law repeating the same lie over and over again succeeds only in making the liar look stupid, and accordingly you’ve realized success.
 
Gee, what did this Patriotic American think of rebels?

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." -Samuel Adams, 1787

To paperview: Since you enjoy quoting America’s Founders here’s a few you might not care for. Lincoln is the hypocrite referred to in the opening:


. . . that Supreme Court decision has held, and will continue to hold, because whether you or any other neo-confederate like it or not - live it, learn it, love it: Secession is illegal.

To paperview: The Czar might have stayed in power had his people told the Communists that revolution was illegal. Ditto the people who supported governments overthrown by Communists.

After acquiring the power the Communists turned out to be more brutal, more murderous, more tyrannical than the people they replaced AND IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS.

Constitutional or not will matter little when the American people have had enough of the Communists. The only thing that bothers me is knowing that the Communists will get a fairer shake than they ever gave anyone else. Were it up to Samuel Adams they would suffer death.
What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

Stupid Ron Paul videobots
 
Gee, what did this Patriotic American think of rebels?

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." -Samuel Adams, 1787

To paperview: Since you enjoy quoting America’s Founders here’s a few you might not care for. Lincoln is the hypocrite referred to in the opening:



. . . that Supreme Court decision has held, and will continue to hold, because whether you or any other neo-confederate like it or not - live it, learn it, love it: Secession is illegal.

To paperview: The Czar might have stayed in power had his people told the Communists that revolution was illegal. Ditto the people who supported governments overthrown by Communists.

After acquiring the power the Communists turned out to be more brutal, more murderous, more tyrannical than the people they replaced AND IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS.

Constitutional or not will matter little when the American people have had enough of the Communists. The only thing that bothers me is knowing that the Communists will get a fairer shake than they ever gave anyone else. Were it up to Samuel Adams they would suffer death.
What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

Stupid Ron Paul videobots

Ron Paul is stupid because he likes freedom from central government?? THis was Jefferson's exact position!!! What planet have you been on??
 
In politics conservatives can repeat the same lie over and over again in the hope it’s perceived as true.

why not give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

Goodness, where to start…

Obama’s a Kenyan

Obama’s a socialist

Obama’s a fascist

Obama’s a Muslim

Obama’s a Messiah

Fast forward four years and we have the most recent lie: Obama in a conspiracy to cover up his personal criminal acts concerning Benghazi.

Most conservatives have been lying for so long they can no longer tell the lies from the truth.
 
To paperview: Since you enjoy quoting America’s Founders here’s a few you might not care for. Lincoln is the hypocrite referred to in the opening:





To paperview: The Czar might have stayed in power had his people told the Communists that revolution was illegal. Ditto the people who supported governments overthrown by Communists.

After acquiring the power the Communists turned out to be more brutal, more murderous, more tyrannical than the people they replaced AND IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS.

Constitutional or not will matter little when the American people have had enough of the Communists. The only thing that bothers me is knowing that the Communists will get a fairer shake than they ever gave anyone else. Were it up to Samuel Adams they would suffer death.
What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

Stupid Ron Paul videobots

Ron Paul is stupid because he likes freedom from central government?? THis was Jefferson's exact position!!! What planet have you been on??

No, Ron Paul is stupid because he bemoans the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government yet embraces the tyranny of state and local governments.
 
What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

Stupid Ron Paul videobots

Ron Paul is stupid because he likes freedom from central government?? THis was Jefferson's exact position!!! What planet have you been on??

No, Ron Paul is stupid because he bemoans the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government yet embraces the tyranny of state and local governments.

the beauty of the federal system is that you can move to another state freely. If MA, for example, wants socialist Romneycare its fine with conservative libertarians as long as residents are 100% free to leave. States were thought to be the laboratories of democracy.
 
In politics conservatives can repeat the same lie over and over again in the hope it’s perceived as true.

why not give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

Goodness, where to start…

Obama’s a Kenyan

too stupid but 100% liberal. I asked for your best example of a conservative lie and you use an example that less than 1% of conservatives believe. Does that mean you're slow, so very very slow??

Here's a best example of a substantive liberal lie. Do you have any idea what best or substantive mean???

The rich don't pay their fair share when the top1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and more than any other country on earth.

See why we are 100% ppositve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.
 
In politics conservatives can repeat the same lie over and over again in the hope it’s perceived as true.

why not give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

Goodness, where to start…

Obama’s a Kenyan

too stupid but 100% liberal. I asked for your best example of a conservative lie and you use an example that less than 1% of conservatives believe. Does that mean you're slow, so very very slow??

Here's a best example of a substantive liberal lie. Do you have any idea what best or substantive mean???

The rich don't pay their fair share when the top1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and more than any other country on earth.

See why we are 100% ppositve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

I see you have successfully mounted wheels on those goalposts.
 
In politics conservatives can repeat the same lie over and over again in the hope it’s perceived as true.

why not give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

Goodness, where to start…

Obama’s a Kenyan

too stupid but 100% liberal. I asked for your best example of a conservative lie and you use an example that less than 1% of conservatives believe. Does that mean you're slow, so very very slow??

Here's a best example of a substantive liberal lie. Do you have any idea what best or substantive mean???

The rich don't pay their fair share when the top1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and more than any other country on earth.

See why we are 100% ppositve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

I see you have successfully mounted wheels on those goalposts.

what?????????????
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top