US Constitution

[M14 Shooter]

I'm talking about the freaking texan secession from mexico fool. Did I quote anything talking about the civil war. No. You want to go with that, take it to the civil war thread.

You'll note that the primary focus of the conversation is secession during the civil war. Its fine if you dont want to engage in that part of the conversation, but there's no need for you to be an ass otherwise.

I apologize to any posters whom I insult, but I'm part of a debate club and we have a really low tolerance for not listening to what the opposition says. You really have to dot your i's and cross your t's and pay attention.

Ooooh - a debate club!
Is that like a glee club?

 

[Larkinn]

Touche....but your opinion is misguided by a law that took place AFTER the Civil War and was certainly not representative of the Constitution.

Its not a law that took place after...its a decision interpreting laws already in existence that took place after. The laws were there before hand.

You can make fun all you like, but the fact that the Supreme Court has been wrong before makes it perfectly legitimate to question it's "authority."

Not quite. Feel free to question its judgement. But if you want to question its authority, either you'll have to toss the constitution or get a constitutional amendment.

Like I said, until you find a clause, amdendment, and/or law in the Constitution that was in 1861, that clearly, or even remotely states that a state cannot secede, you don't have valid argument

And like I said, your opinion on the matter means jack shit, as does mine. The USSC's opinion, however, matters.

 

[BrianH]

I'm talking about the freaking texan secession from mexico fool. Did I quote anything talking about the civil war. No. You want to go with that, take it to the civil war thread.

I apologize to any posters whom I insult, but I'm part of a debate club and we have a really low tolerance for not listening to what the opposition says. You really have to dot your i's and cross your t's and pay attention.

Annexation was always voluntary...the fact that the U.S. has the right to annex was just that...given a state volunteered for it. Texas was it's own country until it voluntarily joined. That was the purpose "free and independent states."

As far as Mexico is concerned, I've heard that Mexico history still teaches that the Texas revolution ever existed, but that Texas was purchased. I believe Texas did pay Mexico, eventually, but none-the-less, a war was waged for independence.

As far as the U.S. COnstitution is concerned, there is nothing in that that forbids a state to secede. The laws of the COnstitution applies only to states, terriroties that belong to the U.S. This is why the U.S. cannot enforce it's laws on Cuba, or other nations. Because it includes only the states that are part of the Union. And when a state secedes, (granted by the constitution--Amendment 10) they are not longer part of the Union.

The only catch, was that the Union did not recognize the South's independence. This does not mean that it is illegal. The French did recognize the South's independence, so in their eyes, the South was justified. It's all POV. Going by the book, the South legally seceded...considering the Constitution did not prohibit it, and mentioned nothing of it.

 

[BrianH]

Its not a law that took place after...its a decision interpreting laws already in existence that took place after. The laws were there before hand.

That's the catch Larkin, what law are you specifically speaking of??? What law did the Supreme Court relate to it's decision? It certainly wasn't a law that forbade secession.


Not quite. Feel free to question its judgement. But if you want to question its authority, either you'll have to toss the constitution or get a constitutional amendment.

Agreed. I'm not worried about having it tossed. But I'm not simply going to believe that their right just because it's the Supreme Court. I try to be a little more educated than just following mass opinion and false interpreted "law."



And like I said, your opinion on the matter means jack shit, as does mine. The USSC's opinion, however, matters.

Agreed....but we don't have to like.

 

[Larkinn]

That's the catch Larkin, what law are you specifically speaking of??? What law did the Supreme Court relate to it's decision? It certainly wasn't a law that forbade secession.

It referred to the Constitution in the decision and whatever other laws it looked at. Whether you see it/believe it/think it or not those things forbade the secession even if the USSC only specifically said so after the fact.

Thats how the law works in this country. Don't like it? Try to change it or deal. But thats how they work.

Agreed. I'm not worried about having it tossed. But I'm not simply going to believe that their right just because it's the Supreme Court.

Again, I never claimed that they were right in their interpretation, but that interpretation is the law. Hence the states seceding did so illegally.

I try to be a little more educated than just following mass opinion and false interpreted "law."

Putting it in scare quotes doesn't make the law any less binding or legal.

Agreed....but we don't have to like

No, you don't. Again you can argue that the case was unjustified, stupid, badly reasoned, whatever. But the case carries the force of law.

 

[dread]

It referred to the Constitution in the decision and whatever other laws it looked at. Whether you see it/believe it/think it or not those things forbade the secession even if the USSC only specifically said so after the fact.

.

No it didn't...It used the Articles of Confederation to justify its decision....The Articles didn't exist AFTER the Constitution came into being. Meaning the Articles became NULL AND VIOD.

How can a decision be made on something that was NULL AND VOID?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Agreed....but we don't have to like.

You are correct in that it is perfectly appropriate to question SCotUS decisions, and that there has been a decision in no way means that decision is unassailable.

While 'that's the law, like it or not' is true, the fact that it is the law doesnt mean that the law (or in this case, the decision) is well-reasoned. A decision may certainly be questioned due to a lack of reason, and any decision that has no rational basis (like the one in question) is little more than "because we say so".

Its interesting that the people least likely to accept "because I said so" from your or me-- that is, the liberals among us -- are the most likely to glom onto court decisions that do exactly that.

 

[Larkinn]

No it didn't...It used the Articles of Confederation to justify its decision....The Articles didn't exist AFTER the Constitution came into being. Meaning the Articles became NULL AND VIOD.

Did the purpose behind the Articles become Null and void?

It didn't refer to the Constitution in the decision? You sure you want to say that?

 

[Larkinn]

You are correct in that it is perfectly appropriate to question SCotUS decisions, and that there has been a decision in no way means that decision is unassailable.

Who said it was unassailable? Attack it all you want. Just don't make the moronic claim that its not law.

While 'that's the law, like it or not' is true, the fact that it is the law doesnt mean that the law (or in this case, the decision) is well-reasoned. A decision may certainly be questioned due to a lack of reason, and any decision that has no rational basis (like the one in question) is little more than "because we say so".

Good, glad you admit the secession was illegal. Again, feel free to question the decision, just don't question the legality of it. Its legal. Period.

Its interesting that the people least likely to accept "because I said so" from your or me-- that is, the liberals among us -- are the most likely to glom onto court decisions that do exactly that.

Maybe because the Constitution gives your opinion exactly 0 weight?

 

[BrianH]

It referred to the Constitution in the decision and whatever other laws it looked at. Whether you see it/believe it/think it or not those things forbade the secession even if the USSC only specifically said so after the fact.

Thats how the law works in this country. Don't like it? Try to change it or deal. But thats how they work.



Again, I never claimed that they were right in their interpretation, but that interpretation is the law. Hence the states seceding did so illegally.



Putting it in scare quotes doesn't make the law any less binding or legal.



No, you don't. Again you can argue that the case was unjustified, stupid, badly reasoned, whatever. But the case carries the force of law.

You seem to be arguing something different than what is on this thread. WE all know the the logistics of federal government and how it works. We're not arguing the fact that whatever the Supreme Court rules is considered the law of the land. That's not relevant. The issue is looking at the Constitution and deciding whether it was legal or not. You don't have to be a Supreme Court justice to look at the Constitution and make your own decision on whether or not it was justified.

If you can't look past, "Well the SC said so so that's law" argument, then you bring no objective thought to this thread.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you can't look past, "Well the SC said so so that's law" argument, then you bring no objective thought to this thread.

Its pretty clear that, given that they have been focusing on "the SCotUS said so" rather than the argument you're making, they recognize that if they -were- to put objective thought into it, they'd have to agree with you/us.

 

[Larkinn]

You seem to be arguing something different than what is on this thread. WE all know the the logistics of federal government and how it works. We're not arguing the fact that whatever the Supreme Court rules is considered the law of the land. That's not relevant. The issue is looking at the Constitution and deciding whether it was legal or not. You don't have to be a Supreme Court justice to look at the Constitution and make your own decision on whether or not it was justified.

The argument hasn't been whether it was justified or not. People have been saying the South had the legal right to secede. They didn't.

If you can't look past, "Well the SC said so so that's law" argument, then you bring no objective thought to this thread.

I am commenting solely on the argument that the Souths actions were legal or illegal. They were illegal. That is settled fact.

 

[Larkinn]

Its pretty clear that, given that they have been focusing on "the SCotUS said so" rather than the argument you're making, they recognize that if they -were- to put objective thought into it, they'd have to agree with you/us.

I'm plural now? Alright then. As I've said before in this thread (try and read the thread before entering it next time), the only part that interests me is the legality argument. Don't really care for the argument of whether it was justified or not. Don't know that much about it. But the secession was illegal, despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[The_Hammer]

You'll note that the primary focus of the conversation is secession during the civil war. Its fine if you dont want to engage in that part of the conversation, but there's no need for you to be an ass otherwise.

And yet I was responding to a specific post in this thread. Also moron if you'd look at the opening post, it's referring to instances where people ignore the constitution. If you want to discuss southern secession in detail there's a thread going on for that in the history forum. This one regards the constitution and the constitution alone. How it relates to the civil war is a facet that is part of the conversation, not it's primary focus.

Ooooh - a debate club!
Is that like a glee club?

Way to internally conflict your own post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet I was responding to a specific post in this thread. Also moronif you'd look at the opening post...

This is a message board, son, not some debate club.
Grow up, and let it go.

 

[The_Hammer]

Annexation was always voluntary...the fact that the U.S. has the right to annex was just that...given a state volunteered for it. Texas was it's own country until it voluntarily joined. That was the purpose "free and independent states."

As far as the U.S. COnstitution is concerned, there is nothing in that that forbids a state to secede. The laws of the COnstitution applies only to states, terriroties that belong to the U.S. This is why the U.S. cannot enforce it's laws on Cuba, or other nations. Because it includes only the states that are part of the Union. And when a state secedes, (granted by the constitution--Amendment 10) they are not longer part of the Union.

And I'm saying you can't declare youself not part of the union following the constitution. I'm not going to derail and make this a southern was right vs wrong thing in this thread. I'll do it in the history forum.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And I'm saying you can't declare youself not part of the union following the constitution

So, we're back to the questions I asked:
Which pre-1860 law prohibits secession?
Which part - article, section, clause - of the Constitution prohibits secession?

 

[ReillyT]

So, we're back to the questions I asked:
Which pre-1860 law prohibits secession?
Which part - article, section, clause - of the Constitution prohibits secession?

The important clause of the Constitution is Article III and Marbury v. Madison, which gives the USSC authority to make final decisions of legality. The USSC said secession is not legal. In the end it matters little what the reasoning was. It is the law because they say it is the law (until it is changed). Plessy v. Ferguson sucked, but it really was the law until the law changed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The important clause of the Constitution is Article III and Marbury v. Madison, which gives the USSC authority to make final decisions of legality. The USSC said secession is not legal.

Ok, so...
-There is no pre-1860 law prohibits secession.
-There is no part - article, section, clause - of the Constitution that prohibits secession.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Given the above, how would you characterize the -soundess- of the argument that secession violates the Constitution?

 

[The_Hammer]

Ok, so...
-There is no pre-1860 law prohibits secession.

I would agree if you are arguing the constitutionality of the war, a it must be contemporary law or interpretation of existing ones of the war and not one ex post facto.