paperview
Life is Good
"Remember, Brip...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about."
So true,
So true,
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.
"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
"Remember, Brip...and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about."
So true,
That is an interpretation, not a fact."There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
That is an interpretation, not a fact."There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.
You 'Davis cult members' ought to get a grip. When you are treated respectfully in posts and then descend into school-yard speech to respond, you sound childish. This poster has made no suggestions of worship of anyone, let alone Lincoln, so stop with that!That is an interpretation, not a fact."There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.
No it's not an interpretation of fact. Are the terms in the Articles of Confederation still in effect? Clearly not. That means the agreement was tossed into the waste basket.
There was no procedure described in the Articles of Confederation to draft a Constitution.
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim the Articles of Confederation are still in effect even though no one abides by them.
I love the way you Lincoln cult members just make stuff up and act like it's some kind of credible evidence.
First you would have to prove it is legal to secede which after the civil war it was proved not to be and second if it took all of the states to ratify why wouldn't it take all the states to allow a state to leave? In business there are penalties for leaving a contract like that.... It is fraud.The Term NOT delegated to the US dummy that means you would still have to be part of the US for the constitutional protections you are demanding....You can not have you cake and eat it toAmendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Since succession is not addressed by the constitution, then it should be up to individual states to decide.
And, yes I know that the USSC has ruled differently since the civil war. But that's proof that sometimes the Supreme Court makes stuff up that is not in the constitution.
Also, if a state decides to succeed, why should they care what the Supreme Court thinks anymore. That state is declaring itself free from the U.S. and no longer bound by its laws or court rulings.
And they WERE part of the US . . . at the time they issued their declaration of secession. Otherwise, there'd have been nothing for them to secede FROM.
This argument is like saying that in order to get divorced, you have to be in a marriage . . . but the second you get divorced, you're not married anymore, and so you don't qualify for the divorce.
Nice Catch-22, but not gonna work.
It isnt a dodge.....No way would this country or theirs have stood if the confederates would have won the war. First more states would have severed ties because now the safety in numbers no longer applies leaving a shit load of little countries now fighting each other for resources. Then we would be easy picking for Britain to come in and retake us and they would have as well as Spain and Mexico and France. With in a decade the USA would have been a memory and in less time the confederate states would have been one as well and STILL history would herald them as traitors that destroyed their own free nation.The south wouldn't have won we all would have lost..... But as we see they lost.You can say it isn't permitted because it is called rebellion and that is treason and yes before you spout out more stupidity our founding fathers were traitors to the crown. .The Constitution doesn't mention secession, so how can anyone claim it isn't permitted? The theory that everything not expressly permitted is denied is the logic of morons.
It's called secession, and it isn't treason. Lincoln is the one who committed treason by making war on states of the union.
The Major difference being the founders won their rebellion. They won it because they were worthy. Not just strength won the revolutionary war but ideals of liberty and freedom because it garnered the Frenches help which without them we wouldn't have a country today. The confederates didn't have that morel ground to stand on. You cant scream you are for freedom and then rebel to expand slave economics. The founders one great weakness was allowing the slavery to exist after we were founded. Lincoln fixed that with the cray baby help of the south. They started a war and gave him the opportunity to emancipate them......
So winning makes it right? It's hard to believe that an adult is stupid and unscrupulous to utter such nonsense. The Founders were no more "worth" than the leaders of the Confederacy. Their ideals were virtually identical. The French helped because England was Frances enemy. That doesn't provide the slightest sliver of "moral ground."
Bottom line: You're an ignominious weasel.
So by that logic, if the South HAD won, Thanatos would be in here today telling us how legal and virtuous secession is, based simply on the fact that it worked.
I expect better of you than this sort of half-assed dodging. Address the point directly, please.
OMG you are so fucking stupid! Please stop saying you are conservative because you are a embarrassment to the philosophy! Each state ratified the constitution dummy! That means the articles of confederation were not willy nilly thrown away!"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
So what, the British had the authority to put down the American Revolution. So do you support them because what the Americans did was illegal and the British had the legal authority to put it down?
So the folks I'm talking to insist that the States had the legal authority to secede and that they could withdrawn from the constitution unilaterally and at will. I've argued they can't. Not under the law. Not under the constitution. And I have lots and lots of legal evidence to prove it.
Amazingly enough, telling us you have "lots and lots of evidence" does not in itself constitute evidence. Your telling us that something is true barely constitutes evidence that you have a computer with a keyboard, from my viewpoint.
If typing the words 'lots and lots of evidence' were the extent of my presentation, you'd be right. Alas, it isn't and you're not.
Well, I would have to take your word for that, since so far, it HAS been the extent of your presentation. I still wait in vain for you to show, rather than tell.
Just because you are late to the conversation doesn't mean I'm obligated to re-present my evidence. Everything I've cited is right here in the thread.
Shown, not told. Look at it if you wish. Or don't. Your participation isn't vital to my argument.
What we are saying is that states need to live up to their word.....Seems like a lot of people are saying that once a state is in th Union, then it has to stay in, no matter what the people of that state want. That seems quite tyrannical to me.
It's certainly an interesting viewpoint that people must "keep their word" by remaining in a contract when the other party to that contract isn't keeping his. It's WRONG, but it's interesting.
So true. Note how the members of the Lincoln cult believe that nothing is too extreme or cruel to inflict on Southern states because they seceded. Killing 850,000 people is a light sentence, in their view. But the archangel Lincoln can repeal habeas corpus, trash the First Amendment by arresting newspaper editors and shutting down over 300 news paper, throw citizens in concentrations camps without a trial, arrest the entire state legislature of Maryland and attempt to arrest a justice of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't even cause the faintest ripple in their composure.
Well, in fairness to those people who aren't outright leftist mouthbreathers, all of us have lived our entire lives in a cohesive nation with a strong federal government and strong national identity. It is virtually impossible for most people to put themselves into the mindset of those living in the antebellum era and truly understand how they thought and felt.
You also have to include in your determination the fact that they have spent their entire childhoods in government run brainwashing mills whose sole function is to inculcate the beliefs that support the current regime.
"There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
That is an interpretation, not a fact."There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.
It isnt a dodge.....No way would this country or theirs have stood if the confederates would have won the war. First more states would have severed ties because now the safety in numbers no longer applies leaving a shit load of little countries now fighting each other for resources.
You must be really speechless when you read the Supreme Court ruling:That is an interpretation, not a fact."There you go with that "perpetual union" crap again. WHERE are you getting that phrase from, other than your own diseased mind?"
With just a modicum of effort, the term would be found by looking at the Articles of Confederation, which established the United States and was extended by the present Constitution, in effect since 1789.
The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin when Congress drafted the Constitution. If anything, they prove that the union was not perpetual.
Where and when was this throwing into the waste basket so clearly done?
When they drafted the Constitution. The terms of the Articles of Confederation immediately became null
If one accepts that The Union was formed with the original Articles, then the Union was perpetual. If one accepts that the new Constitution was adopted outside the procedure described by the Articles, then the new Constitution is invalid and the Articles still apply and the Union is perpetual. If it is accepted that the new Constitution is valid, then it must be accepted that the conditions of Union set in the Articles apply.
Excuse me, what? It's a matter of opinion that the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation? You actually think that the Articles of Confederation apply as valid, currently-applicable law? Really?
I'm speechless. In the face of this much towering idiocy, I am literally without words.