Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[regent]

The Court in Marbury v Madison said that we the people gave the power to interpret the Constitution to the Court in the Constitution. .

So tell us what section of the constitution the court interpreted when they said states must provide free k-12 for illegal aliens.

Are you incapable of looking up anything so simple?

 

[thanatos144]

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

Amendment 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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secession

The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.
Please feel free to answer my question.

Laws and regulations. That's the powers . I know it is hard for you to understand this but the founders didn't think that many of the people would turn in to dishonorable democrats who refuse to honor agreements.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

Amendment 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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secession

The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.
Please feel free to answer my question.

Laws and regulations. That's the powers .

A statement you have no hope of proving.

 

[thanatos144]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

Amendment 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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secession

The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.
Please feel free to answer my question.

Laws and regulations. That's the powers .

A statement you have no hope of proving.

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English. Not crazy democrat language

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK, so...
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.

Amendment 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

Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?

Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secession

The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.
Please feel free to answer my question.

Laws and regulations. That's the powers .

A statement you have no hope of proving.

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English.

^^^
Not proof.

 

[thanatos144]

Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secession

The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.
Please feel free to answer my question.

Laws and regulations. That's the powers .

A statement you have no hope of proving.

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English.

^^^
Not proof.

So the constitution isn't proof........ did you eat paint chips as a kid?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.
Please feel free to answer my question.

Laws and regulations. That's the powers .

A statement you have no hope of proving.

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English.

^^^
Not proof.

So the constitution isn't proof.

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

 

[thanatos144]

Laws and regulations. That's the powers .

A statement you have no hope of proving.

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English.

^^^
Not proof.

So the constitution isn't proof.

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[M14 Shooter]

A statement you have no hope of proving.

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English.

^^^
Not proof.

So the constitution isn't proof.

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

^^^
Not proof

 

[thanatos144]

It is obvious in the amendment. Plain simple English.

^^^
Not proof.

So the constitution isn't proof.

Your statement is not proof of your claim.
You have no hope of proving that the "powers" reserved to the state and/or the people by 10th amendment refer exclusively to the power to make laws and regulations.
You know this.

Except that is the whole fucking reason for the constitution to tell us what limits on laws and regulations the government has....... common sense

^^^
Not proof

That's the equivlent of sticking your fingers in your ears so the truth can't get in

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

 

[regent]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

 

[bripat9643]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Infinitely.

 

[thanatos144]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

Like I said you are a bona fide moron

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Infinitely.

Then we are no longer a country we are a bunch of ignorant assholes like you ripe for hostile invasion. Yet you won't understand this because you are to fucking stupid.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

Like I said you are a bona fide moron

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's about the only argument you have.

 

[thanatos144]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

Like I said you are a bona fide moron

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's about the only argument you have.

That isn't a argument that is a statement of fact.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Suppose the Supreme Court declared secession legal? In fact suppose the Court declared a county could secede from a state a city from a county, and a personal lot from a subdivision, would that improve things?

Infinitely.

Then we are no longer a country we are a bunch of ignorant assholes like you ripe for hostile invasion. Yet you won't understand this because you are to fucking stupid.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Why should anyone care if we are no longer a country? If the government had us all goose stepping hand saluting the latest fuhrer you would still be whining that anyone who objected to participating wanted to destroy the country. The federal government isn't the country, and it can go fuck itself.

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrat south tried and failed to destroy the country. Because of that now only a moron sees session as a viable solution to anything unless he wants to start a war.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln destroyed the country. Secession doesn't "destroy" anything other than a legal fiction.

Like I said you are a bona fide moron

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That's about the only argument you have.

That isn't a argument that is a statement of fact.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Your logic is stunning!