Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[Bombur]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

The federal govern has no such authority.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

All the people did. It wasn't simply a right given to a certain group of people (Federal Government) but all people.

They didn't just have the right, they had the duty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no mention in the constitution of "perpetual union". That is a lie spread by lincoln. He was both a politician and a corporate lawyer. Lying was his middle name.

Do you reject the Pledge of Allegiance?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

The slave states were in violation of the rights of mankind. They didn't need legal justification. Whether you think they had legal justification or not is immaterial.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Horseshit. They weren't in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is required to comply with the Constitution, not some lame utopian theory that didn't even exist at the time.

The Constitution rules over the states via the Supremacy Clause. States that simply try to walk away from the Union are immediately in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lets have a look at our Declaration of Independence shall we...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

Libs will hate this part...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

You libs better get your shit together before you find yourself fighting in the streets for food on your side of the fence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All true Americans, from libs to cons, love "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" and simply will not let unhinged far right social con weirdos alter or abolish this good government.

 

[bripat9643]

For someone so quick to use insulting terms to people they don't know, you don't exude intelligence yourself.
I have seen your statement to that effect. That has no weight with me. You obviously have no references with authority to back up this pet theory of yours, or you would have produced it. I have found none. As this shoots holes in your vociferous support of the slavery-based system of the rebellion, you clearly avoid it.

What could be more "authoritative" than the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation themselves? What is your claim that that union created by the Articles survived their demise? All you have is your own say-so. Logic and the facts indicate no such thing. The Articles are no longer in force and aren't ever even mentioned in the law. Your logic train is out of steam.

 

[bripat9643]

All true Americans, from libs to cons, love "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" and simply will not let unhinged far right social con weirdos alter or abolish this good government.

Then you admit the Confederate states had a right to dissolve the bonds that joined them to the federal government. You just petulantly insist that they don't.

 

[bripat9643]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

 

[bripat9643]

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

The slave states were in violation of the rights of mankind. They didn't need legal justification. Whether you think they had legal justification or not is immaterial.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Horseshit. They weren't in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is required to comply with the Constitution, not some lame utopian theory that didn't even exist at the time.

The DOI didn't exist at the time?

You need to go back to school son.

Note: I said the Constitution. The DOI has no legal force..

 

[bripat9643]

Sux to be you then, shoots. We are a perpetual union. Tough.

Until we aren't.

 

[bripat9643]

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

The slave states were in violation of the rights of mankind. They didn't need legal justification. Whether you think they had legal justification or not is immaterial.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Horseshit. They weren't in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is required to comply with the Constitution, not some lame utopian theory that didn't even exist at the time.

The Constitution rules over the states via the Supremacy Clause. States that simply try to walk away from the Union are immediately in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Wrong. They are no more in violation of the Constitution than they would be for raising the Confederate flag at the capitol. The Supremacy clause says only that the federal laws take precedence over state laws. There is no federal law saying a state can't secede. There never has been. Before the Civil War, any attempt to pass such a law would have been voted down. I doubt it would pass even now. Of course, it would actually require an amendment to the Constitution, and that has zero chance of being ratified.

You're pissing into the wind, son.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There is no mention in the constitution of "perpetual union". That is a lie spread by lincoln. He was both a politician and a corporate lawyer. Lying was his middle name.

Do you reject the Pledge of Allegiance?

It's as legally binding as the ten commandments.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Constitution rules over the states via the Supremacy Clause. States that simply try to walk away from the Union are immediately in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

HAHAHA. The Supremacy Clause says nothing about secession. Nothing in the constitution does. The founding fathers never mentioned it because it was obvious the states had the right to secede. That's what they had just fought the Revolutionary War over. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Wrong. They are no more in violation of the Constitution than they would be for raising the Confederate flag at the capitol. The Supremacy clause says only that the federal laws take precedence over state laws. .

Actually the Supremacy Clause does not even say that. It says "This constitution and all laws which shall be MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, shall be the supreme law of the land." The capitalized part is critical - only constitutional federal laws are the supreme law of the land. And who decides that? The constitution does not say which means, by the tenth amendment, the power to decide whether a federal law is constitutional or not, rests with each state.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. They are no more in violation of the Constitution than they would be for raising the Confederate flag at the capitol. The Supremacy clause says only that the federal laws take precedence over state laws. .

Actually the Supremacy Clause does not even say that. It says "This constitution and all laws which shall be MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, shall be the supreme law of the land." The capitalized part is critical - only constitutional federal laws are the supreme law of the land. And who decides that? The constitution does not say which means, by the tenth amendment, the power to decide whether a federal law is constitutional or not, rests with each state.

The Lincoln cult has been so thoroughly whipped in this debate that it's sad to watch their pathetic attempts to salvage Lincoln's reputation.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Lincoln cult has been thoroughly whipped in this debate that's sad to watch their pathetic attempts.

Yes it is a cult. History is written by the victors and Abe has gone down as a great man and a great president. He was neither.

 

[there4eyeM]

O.K., one more time.
It is very, very clear. We always speak about 'original intention', right? Clear so far (at least for most readers here)?
Good.
Now the original Union, as set up in the Articles of Confederation, right, was, what? Yes, Perpetual. Good!
Now, the new Constitution was "in order to" do what? Come on, you can say it!
Yes! "form a MORE PERFECT Union..."
Now, in the English language, this is call a comparative. That means that one thing, in this case the succeeding Constitution, is compared to another, related thing, in this case the Union established in the Articles. SO, the Union is a seamless continuation.
This is what the framers (who spoke English and understood the language quite well) intended. t was so implicit that they did not see the necessity of restating it in the Constitution, which admittedly was not approved in the manner prescribed in the earlier Articles. So, to say the Perpetual Union did not exist any longer is to say the new Constitution was not in effect, which in turn means that the original Articles were and are the active documents establishing the US.
And you're back to Perpetual Union.
And no way to secede except by legal agreement or sedition/rebellion.

P. S. Note to Davis cultists: This has nothing to do with Lincoln.

 

[Bombur]

Lets have a look at our Declaration of Independence shall we...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

Libs will hate this part...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

You libs better get your shit together before you find yourself fighting in the streets for food on your side of the fence.

The Southern states were blatantly destructive to "these ends" referenced in the DOI. The north always had a justification for leaving the union. The South was evil.

 

[Bombur]

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then how can you claim the South wasn't entitled to give the federal government the middle finger salute?

I think that is a grey area honestly but I simply don't care about it because it is a non-issue compared to the right of the people to destroy those state governments and replace them with a government that did their job.

Whether the federal government had the legal authority to invade the Southern states and slaughter 850,000 people is a "grey area?" The federal government had no right to invade, period.

They didn't need a legal authority. All legal authority is dependent on the government meeting the principles laid out in the DOI.

I hope this conversation helps you better understand the basis for which our government and our laws exist because it seems you really don't get it. Which is sad considering it is almost July 4th.

 

[Bombur]

How can the federal government make war agaunst the states?
Under what constitutional/legal authority can the federal government do that?

The slave states were in violation of the rights of mankind. They didn't need legal justification. Whether you think they had legal justification or not is immaterial.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Horseshit. They weren't in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is required to comply with the Constitution, not some lame utopian theory that didn't even exist at the time.

The DOI didn't exist at the time?

You need to go back to school son.

Note: I said the Constitution. The DOI has no legal force..

The DOI establishes where all legal force comes from. Legal force isn't justified by itself but through the principles established in the DOI. You said legal force because you don't seem to understand that there is a a greater authority than legal force which allows all people to abolish governments. The people of the US always had the authority to abolish those governments that allowed slavery. No legal document can give or take that right away.