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.
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.
You can't declare youself not part of the union following the constitution
OK, so:That sum up my arguments.
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?
OK, so:
-There was no law prohibiting secession
-There is no part of the Constititon that specifically prohibits secession.
Your arguments here are your inferences -- penumbras and emonations, as it were -- drawn from other articles/sections. They do not draw from any direct statement, only your interpretations of other unrelated articles/clauses.
Given that there is no direct prohibition to secession, the argument that, through the 10th amendment, the states retain their right to secession stands. Implication/inference does not carry more weight than direct statement.
The only bit that's a loose interpretation is that part in the 10th amendment about contracts. But it's strengthened and affirmed by the supremacy of constitutional law over that of the states (asserting authority) and the commandment of an oath of loyalty to the constitution.
However, if I am so truly misguided please enlighten me. Show me where it also directly says that a state has a right to remove it'self from the union. The 10th amendment part is no more or less of an "emonation" than what I have stated.
Your contract argument fails in that the Constition has a clause that allows for the retention of -all- rights not otherwise prohibited by or specified in the contract. Given that there is no part of the Constititon that defines the tems of the right to secession, the right to withdraw from that contract, absent any language to the contrary, is retained in it absolute form by the states.The only bit that's a loose interpretation is that part in the 10th amendment about contracts.
Any supremacy of the Constitution only applies to parties of same, whoch casts no light on the issue as if parties can or cannot withthdraw. The "oath" was taken voluntarily, and absent and clause regarding permanancy or perpituity, it can be revoked a a right retained under the 10th amendment.But it's strengthened and affirmed by the supremacy of constitutional law over that of the states (asserting authority) and the commandment of an oath of loyalty to the constitution.
This isnt a necessary condition, given that ALL rights not specifically given up are retained. A right does not need to be specificlaly mentioned for it to exist, but for a right to be given up, the constituion must specifically say so.Show me where it also directly says that a state has a right to remove it'self from the union.
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.
The force of law, backed up by the force of arms. Isn't that the definition of tyranny?
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.
The force of law, backed up by the force of arms. Isn't that the definition of tyranny?
Then we have this gem.
Clearly if the Congress is needed to admit a State and that State is formed from property given it BY the Federal Government, it is reasonable to infer the reverse is true, A State can not leave with out permission.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section3
The USSC has an army?
Besides that, no, thats not the definition of tyranny. Unless you are an anarchist.
You know, they forget about the North's defiance of federal law themselves by openly not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Acts that were established, among other things. This is what happens in histories covering these types of events, the winners right it. IT does not happen in all cases, but does in this one.
You know, they forget about the North's defiance of federal law themselves by openly not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Acts that were established, among other things. This is what happens in histories covering these types of events, the winners right it. IT does not happen in all cases, but does in this one.
If its so clear then you should have no trouble asnwering this question:Secession clearly violates the Constitution.
That should be obvious - yes.Are you asking me to give you my own separate opinion of what the Court should have decided?
If its so clear then you should have no trouble asnwering this question:
Which article, section and clause specifies that prohibition?
That should be obvious - yes.
Please provide the specific clause from the Constitution that specifically prohibits secession.According to the USSC, it is the preamble to the US Constitution, and its historical relationship to the Articles of Confederation.
Please provide the specific clause from the Constitution that specifically prohibits secession.
Look, if you cannot state where the Constititoin specifically denies the states the right to secession, then the 10th amendment reserves that right to the states.Who said it has to be a clause?
