US Constitution

[Larkinn]

Hello? What does a Supreme Court decision in 1869 have to do with secession in 1860? Nothing.

Actually everything. You don't seem to understand how the law works.

What I see here is a decision based on assuming what will "occur to every mind", and referring to the Constitution in general, but no REAL basis for the decision.

Thats nice. Yet again, the USSC is the law of the land. You not liking their opinion doesn't make it not law.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Umm, no. It was ALWAYS the law of the land. The USSC doesn't MAKE law they INTERPRET Law. Therefore it was always the law of the land, the USSC just explicitly said it then.

Let's look at the Court in 1869.

According to the US Supreme Court website the following people were on the court in 1869

Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase from Ohio, appointed by Lincoln
Justice Samuel Nelson of New York, appointed by Tyler
Justice Robert Grier of Pennsylvania, appointed by Polk
Justice Nathan Clifford of Maine appointed by Buchanan
Justice Noah Swayne of Ohio appointed by Lincoln
Justice Samuel Miller of Iowa appointed by Lincoln
Justice David Davis of Illinois appointed by Lincoln
Justice Stephen Field of California appointed by Lincoln

So, a majority of the justices making that decision were appointed by Lincoln. Small wonder the outcome came out the way it did.

 

[Larkinn]

How could the South have ever known that their secession was illegal activity based on a Supreme Court decision that did not yet exist.?

The claim isn't that they knew it was illegal. Or at least I'm not claiming that. I have no idea what they thought about the legality of it.

The SUpreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional...but considering that the COnstitution mentions nothing of the secession of states, and in fact grants them this right based on the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court was wrong in this case. LIke I said, a black man up against an all white jury. Whether a decision in 1869 says so or not, the South were justified at the time in seceeding.

Nice changing of the goalposts there. I'm not interested in arguing if it was justified or not. I tend to think that a bunch of slave holding states can go fuck themselves and justification be damned. But thats just me.

Again...it doesn't matter if you think the USSC was wrong. Your opinion is meaningless. They get to decide the laws, you don't.

 

[Larkinn]

In this case, the court DID justify the US's war against the CSA by ruling that states did not have the right to secede.

Alright.

Excuse my jaded opinion, but when the Supreme Court makes a decision to uphold the actions of the US, I'm hardly surprised. What are the odds the US Supreme Court is going to rule secession legal 4 years after the end of the most bloody conflict in American history? They would have declared their own government's actions unlawful.

And your surprise or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on the legality of the states seceding.

 

[Larkinn]

Incorrect. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal precedent set by Texas v White in 1869 does. A legal precedent with nothing tangible as a basis.

*sigh*

No. Again. The USSC does not make law, they interpret it. They interpreted some documents to say that states cannot secede. Those documents existed before the interpretation and therefore it was illegal to secede before the interpretation.

 

[Gunny]

Alright.



And your surprise or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on the legality of the states seceding.

Nor does your opinion of mine.

 

[Larkinn]

The secession was not illegal according to the Constitution, whether you believe so or not.

Does your word have any force of law? No? Then shut the hell up and listen to those whose words DO have the force of law who say differently.

For people who sure like to cite the Constitution on things, you guys sure back into a hole and start harping on something else when the Constitution doesn't swing your way. Secession was not prohibted by the Constitution, therefore, the powers not prohibited by the Constitution were reserved to the state.

Thats nice. Those who matter say differently.

Hop in a time-travel pod and head for 1861, look at the Constitution (complete with no Supreme Court ruling) and tell me if it would have been legal in your eyes,

No idea, but this is irrelevant.

considering the Constitution never mentioned any such thing. The Supreme Court has been proven wrong before, and they were in this case.

Wow...well your opinion that the USSC was wrong changes everything. Hey everyone...I think the state legislature was wrong when it passed the law outlawing robbing banks...think it'll hold up in court when I get caught?

Hence, the Supreme Court decision was a pile of BS that was made in order to preserve the Union. Like I said, it's like a black man on trial with an all white jury.

And you don't seem to recognize that if the USSC said "Hi secession is illegal because our poop is green" it would still carry the binding force of law .

 

[Larkinn]

Nor does your opinion of mine.

No, but the USSC case DOES have a bearing.

This really isn't complicated, you just don't understand how the court system works.

 

[Gunny]

*sigh*

No. Again. The USSC does not make law, they interpret it. They interpreted some documents to say that states cannot secede. Those documents existed before the interpretation and therefore it was illegal to secede before the interpretation.

Again, NOTHING existed. Nothing they interpreted says what they said it does, so it in fact did not exist.

You're using a rule of law to deny actual fact.

 

[Larkinn]

Can somebody help me out here...I am trying to find where it says that a state can not secede from the US.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


Maybe I missed it

Hmm where in the Constitution does it say a right to privacy. And yes we all have one because the USSC has interpreted it. Don't like it? Cry yourself to sleep. Its still law.

 

[Larkinn]

Let's look at the Court in 1869.

According to the US Supreme Court website the following people were on the court in 1869

Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase from Ohio, appointed by Lincoln
Justice Samuel Nelson of New York, appointed by Tyler
Justice Robert Grier of Pennsylvania, appointed by Polk
Justice Nathan Clifford of Maine appointed by Buchanan
Justice Noah Swayne of Ohio appointed by Lincoln
Justice Samuel Miller of Iowa appointed by Lincoln
Justice David Davis of Illinois appointed by Lincoln
Justice Stephen Field of California appointed by Lincoln

So, a majority of the justices making that decision were appointed by Lincoln. Small wonder the outcome came out the way it did.

Wait, USSC decisions are only legal if you think they are legitimate?

No, actually they always are legal. Don't like it? Tough.

 

[Larkinn]

Again, NOTHING existed. Nothing they interpreted says what they said it does, so it in fact did not exist.

You're using a rule of law to deny actual fact.

I'm using a rule of law to explain whether something was legal or illegal. Thats where you get legal status from. Rules of law.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Wait, USSC decisions are only legal if you think they are legitimate?

No, actually they always are legal. Don't like it? Tough.

I am merely pointing out that the Supreme Court is not exactly a neutral place and given the circumstances, what way did you think they would rule?

 

[Larkinn]

I am merely pointing out that the Supreme Court is not exactly a neutral place and given the circumstances, what way did you think they would rule?

I really couldn't care less.

I only injected myself into this argument to correct the statements that the secession was legal. Whether you, or anyone else, thinks the USSC was right or not is irrelevant. Whether you think it was legitimate is irrelevant. Its decision carries the force of law.

 

[Gunny]

I'm using a rule of law to explain whether something was legal or illegal. Thats where you get legal status from. Rules of law.

And again, actual facts and events are being ignored and brushed aside in favor of standing on a point of law.

The Supreme Court's ruling was partisan, baseless, and bullshit. The documents it interpreted do not say what the Supreme Court said they do. The ruling it made in 1869 had NO bearing on events between 1787 and 1861-1865.

You can say it was the law then, but it was not. It did not exist. The common belief, even among some northern states that threatened to secede in the early 1800s was states had every right to secede. NO legal document precluded that.

You might want to stand on an after the fact ruling as your only argument but it does not address the issue itself.

 

[Larkinn]

And again, actual facts and events are being ignored and brushed aside in favor of standing on a point of law.

The argument was whether it was legal or illegal, yes? The law determines that. If you want to argue whether it was justified, right, whatever then its a different argument and one I'm not qualified to enter. But if the argument is whether it was legal or not, you are dead wrong.

The Supreme Court's ruling was partisan, baseless, and bullshit. The documents it interpreted do not say what the Supreme Court said they do. The ruling it made in 1869 had NO bearing on events between 1787 and 1861-1865.

Actually, yes it did. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Even if you don't find out you broke the law until after you broke the law, you still broke the law.

You can say it was the law then, but it was not. It did not exist.

Did the documents the USSC interpreted to find the law illegal exist? Yes or No.

The common belief, even among some northern states that threatened to secede in the early 1800s was states had every right to secede. NO legal document precluded that.

Oh, well our laws are created by the "common belief" now? Strange for someone who seems to want to back up the constitution that you think somehow the "common belief" makes something legal or not.

You might want to stand on an after the fact ruling as your only argument but it does not address the issue itself.

The issue of its legality? Actually not only does it address the issue, it closes the issue. It was illegal. The highest court in the land said so. Think its wrong? Tough shit.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I really couldn't care less.

I only injected myself into this argument to correct the statements that the secession was legal. Whether you, or anyone else, thinks the USSC was right or not is irrelevant. Whether you think it was legitimate is irrelevant. Its decision carries the force of law.

Only through the force of arms used by Lincoln. Let's face facts, if the South had won, this would be a moot point. Since the South lost, the North had to come with a justification and therefore the USSC decision was produced by a court with 5 of the 8 justices appointed by the man who started the war in the first place. Just the North dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s after the fact.

 

[Larkinn]

Only through the force of arms used by Lincoln. Let's face facts, if the South had won, this would be a moot point. Since the South lost, the North had to come with a justification and therefore the USSC decision was produced by a court with 5 of the 8 justices appointed by the man who started the war in the first place. Just the North dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s after the fact.

Thats nice.

Doesn't change the legality of it one whit. Unless you doubt the legitimacy of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison which gives the USSC that power?

Amusing that you all turn to the Constitution to defend the South but ignore that little part that gives the USSC the right to interpret laws and cry illegitimacy when it doesn't go your way.

 

[dread]

Thats nice.

Doesn't change the legality of it one whit. Unless you doubt the legitimacy of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison which gives the USSC that power?

Amusing that you all turn to the Constitution to defend the South but ignore that little part that gives the USSC the right to interpret laws and cry illegitimacy when it doesn't go your way.

Again WHERE in the constitution does it say that one CAN NOT secede?

Also...ONE CAN NOT make up a law and make it retro active.

So WHAT LAW PRIOR to 1869 said that the south was illegal in seceding?

Put up or shut up!

 

[Larkinn]

Again WHERE in the constitution does it say that one CAN NOT secede?

Do you get to interpret the Constitution? No you don't. Does it matter if you can't find where it says that? No, it doesn't. It only matters if the USSC does or does not find that.

Also...ONE CAN NOT make up a law and make it retro active.

They aren't making up a law, they are interpreting a law. And yes the USSC can pretty much make whatever it wants retroactive.

So WHAT LAW PRIOR to 1869 said that the south was illegal in seceding?

Whatever the USSC cited in their opinion made it illegal. They just didn't happen to spell it out until 1969.

Put up or shut up!

How bout you read the thread since I've answered each of these asinine questions 5x over now instead of bombarding me with the same tired old shit and then saying "put up or shut up"?