Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ok I'll let you wimp out on this, how about you explain how the supremacy clause prohibits succession. I would really be interested in that, just to help you out you can find that clause in Article 6, Clause 2. Please don't wimp out on this one.
It took 3/4's to form the Union and it should take 3/4's to dissolve it. The Supreme Court ruled that a State may NOT leave the Union and that the only acceptable avenue is through act of Congress.
Every State that left the Union left because of Slavery. They codified that in their Succession proclamations. Claiming other wise is simple a lie.
Where would SCOTUS get that reasoning from the Constitution? The Constitution was a contract between the states that created the federal government, at the time of ratification Virginia said if the feds started overreaching they reserved the right to withdraw. A party to any contract has a right to terminate that contract if the terms are not being upheld. SCOTUS has screwed the pooch throughout our history, the latest example was Moabamacare, where they said inactivity can constitute a trigger for a tax, that is unpresidented in our history. At the same time they authorized an unconstitutional direct tax that in not covered under the 16th amendment, I think will be overturned when the tax takes effect. If you would like other fine examples read Men in Black.
The Supremacy Clause prohibits a state from making laws that conflict with federal, or to disregard federal law as it applies to the states.
Secession by its nature does both,
and the sworn duty of the President to defend the Constitution, plus his constitutional authority to enforce federal/constitutional law gives him the power act against any state that secedes.
The supreme court never mentioned the supremacy clause, but is it not unconstitutional to wage war against a state, and by the federal government doing so and operating outside their constitutional authority, would that not nullify the constitution?
It is constitutional to suppress an insurrection.
No state has such a power. Fail.
It took 3/4's to form the Union and it should take 3/4's to dissolve it. The Supreme Court ruled that a State may NOT leave the Union and that the only acceptable avenue is through act of Congress.
Every State that left the Union left because of Slavery. They codified that in their Succession proclamations. Claiming other wise is simple a lie.
Where would SCOTUS get that reasoning from the Constitution? The Constitution was a contract between the states that created the federal government, at the time of ratification Virginia said if the feds started overreaching they reserved the right to withdraw. A party to any contract has a right to terminate that contract if the terms are not being upheld. SCOTUS has screwed the pooch throughout our history, the latest example was Moabamacare, where they said inactivity can constitute a trigger for a tax, that is unpresidented in our history. At the same time they authorized an unconstitutional direct tax that in not covered under the 16th amendment, I think will be overturned when the tax takes effect. If you would like other fine examples read Men in Black.
A party to a contract does not have the unilateral right to decide that a contract is not being adhered to properly and then walk away from it. That has to be litigated or agreed to by the second party, or all other parties.
The supreme court never mentioned the supremacy clause, but is it not unconstitutional to wage war against a state, and by the federal government doing so and operating outside their constitutional authority, would that not nullify the constitution?
It is constitutional to suppress an insurrection.
A state voting to withdraw from the union is not an insurrection, it is succession, check your dictionary, there is a slight difference.
Sure they did.You keep believing that if it makes ya feel good.
You are brain dead, every State that left codified the reason in declarations and almost all of them said they left BECAUSE of Slavery. Moron.
So is that why numerous other states either threatened or did secede? Is that why states want to secede to this day?
A governor may be executed rather than imprisoned for life.
Attempted secession is treason.
The supreme court never mentioned the supremacy clause, but is it not unconstitutional to wage war against a state, and by the federal government doing so and operating outside their constitutional authority, would that not nullify the constitution?
It is constitutional to suppress an insurrection.
A state voting to withdraw from the union is not an insurrection, it is succession, check your dictionary, there is a slight difference.
You are brain dead, every State that left codified the reason in declarations and almost all of them said they left BECAUSE of Slavery. Moron.
So is that why numerous other states either threatened or did secede? Is that why states want to secede to this day?
You are discussing the Civil war and claiming it had nothing to do with slavery. You are either a liar ( I believe that to be true) or to stupid to argue with. Of the States that succeeded from the Union in 1860 almost everyone stated the reason was because of SLAVERY. They issued these Statements to the public and the US Government. They followed this up by seizing Federal facilities and buildings and property. South Carolina started the war by attacking a Federal Fort. All because of Slavery.
The argument about States rights is valid, EXCEPT the State right they fought over was the right to keep SLAVES. And what is funny about that is they had nothing to fear. Lincoln had no intention of asking to eliminate Slavery and even if he did, the South had enough votes in both Houses to prevent it. Their succession actually brought about what they claimed they did not want to lose. If they had stayed in the Union it would have been YEARS before enough votes existed to make slavery illegal.
Trollin' for a civil war slavery debate? That argument was won over 140 years ago.
Yep, it was decided by the force of arms that free men could not be allowed to govern themselves. Ouf founders would be proud.
A governor may be executed rather than imprisoned for life.
Attempted secession is treason.
I am not sure that Federal law agrees with you. Further a Governor can not alone leave the union. he would need the support of his legislature and a majority of States citizens.
But it would be illegal and the only way a State can leave the Union is by an act of Congress. So the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
There is a difference between insurrection and invading an independent nation.
So why don't you jump all over them? Is it because they won? Hmm?
A governor may be executed rather than imprisoned for life.
Attempted secession is treason.
I am not sure that Federal law agrees with you. Further a Governor can not alone leave the union. he would need the support of his legislature and a majority of States citizens.
But it would be illegal and the only way a State can leave the Union is by an act of Congress. So the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
Secession effectively revokes the citizenship and constitutional rights of any resident of that state, regardless of their opinion on the matter.
Which, obviously, is illegal.
There is a difference between insurrection and invading an independent nation.
Our Founders declared themselves 'independent' in 1775, but they also readily acknowledged that they were committing treason.
