Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[Redfish]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.

I'm sure the english called it treason but they didn't think it. Simply leaving a country is not treason.

Wait, so your argument is to tell us what the English *thought*, with your alternative narration being explicitly contradicted by what the English *said*?

That's silly. You're merely ignoring the English response to the Declaration of Independence and inserting whatever you make up in its place. Not only did the English consider the Declaration of Independence to be Treason, they sent armies to the colony to put the rebellion down.

and they lost, so it wasn't treason, it was the founding of a new country.

 

[Skylar]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.

I'm sure the english called it treason but they didn't think it. Simply leaving a country is not treason.

Wait, so your argument is to tell us what the English *thought*, with your alternative narration being explicitly contradicted by what the English *said*?

That's silly. You're merely ignoring the English response to the Declaration of Independence and inserting whatever you make up in its place. Not only did the English consider the Declaration of Independence to be Treason, they sent armies to the colony to put the rebellion down.

and they lost, so it wasn't treason, it was the founding of a new country.

The argument being refuted is that simply leaving a country is not treason. Obvious, it is.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Equating the American struggle for independence from a foreign empire to the seditious effort to destroy a voluntarily joined union requires a very special intellect.

"Voluntarily joined" is right. And that means a state is free to leave when it wants to. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Neither was the United States. Where does the Constitution use the phrase "perpetual union?"

Yup - It never says the united states were perpetual or eternal or anything else of the sort. And yet liar lincoln claimed the Union was perpetual and the states had no right to secede!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[The Secession argument is that it was *within* the system of laws to secede. That it was constitutionally permissible. And this the founders generally didn't accept. With the most constitutionally relevant founders rejecting it explicitly. They recognized neither the right to nullify nor the right to secede under the constitution.

The tenth amendment gives states the constitutional right to secede.

 

[bendog]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.

I'm sure the english called it treason but they didn't think it. Simply leaving a country is not treason.

Wait, so your argument is to tell us what the English *thought*, with your alternative narration being explicitly contradicted by what the English *said*?

That's silly. You're merely ignoring the English response to the Declaration of Independence and inserting whatever you make up in its place. Not only did the English consider the Declaration of Independence to be Treason, they sent armies to the colony to put the rebellion down.

and they lost, so it wasn't treason, it was the founding of a new country.

the founders based their claim that they were being taxed but denied any vote for those who taxed. The confederacy didn't even make that claim. Your analogy is false.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Union was made more perfect by the new constitution, while remaining Perpetual.
Show where the Perpetual Union ended.
This is what the states voluntarily joined and promised to uphold. This is the covenant secessionists sought to break. This is their failed rebellion.

 

[bendog]

The Union was made more perfect by the new constitution, while remaining Perpetual.
Show where the Perpetual Union ended.
This is what the states voluntarily joined and promised to uphold. This is the covenant secessionists sought to break. This is their failed rebellion.

It's a logical argument, and I believe it finds support in Texas v. White, but even that was not unanimous and was roundly criticized. But, I don't really think it's more, or less, a smoking gun the quotes by the founders ... cutting both ways.

 

[Skylar]

[The Secession argument is that it was *within* the system of laws to secede. That it was constitutionally permissible. And this the founders generally didn't accept. With the most constitutionally relevant founders rejecting it explicitly. They recognized neither the right to nullify nor the right to secede under the constitution.

The tenth amendment gives states the constitutional right to secede.

Nope. The federal government is constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over all the territory in the US, including the territory within every state by the Supremacy Clause. For a State to secede they would have to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power: the aforementioned jurisdiction.

And stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something the States cannot do. See the 10th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Equating the American struggle for independence from a foreign empire to the seditious effort to destroy a voluntarily joined union requires a very special intellect.

"Voluntarily joined" is right. And that means a state is free to leave when it wants to. THINK

Nope. Once a State joined the United States it ceased to be the sole sovereign of its territory. It shared concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government, each a sovereign over the territory within a State.

In order for any territorial changes to be made you need the consent of both sovereigns. Look at DC. It required the permission of Virginia and Maryland, along with the Federal Government. Only when both sovereigns were in agreement could the territorial changes be made.

The US government never granted its consent to any changes in territory. Ergo, no changes were made.

It would be akin to two people owning a house. And one of them 'declaring' that they are the sole owners of the house ....because they say so. The declaration doesn't amount to much.

 

[there4eyeM]

If those claiming secession is permitted because it doesn't say it's not by the Constitution, how can they claim the Union is no longer Perpetual when it was, clearly, in the beginning and the Constitution does not say it no longer is?

 

[bripat9643]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.

I'm sure the english called it treason but they didn't think it. Simply leaving a country is not treason.

Wait, so your argument is to tell us what the English *thought*, with your alternative narration being explicitly contradicted by what the English *said*?

That's silly. You're merely ignoring the English response to the Declaration of Independence and inserting whatever you make up in its place. Not only did the English consider the Declaration of Independence to be Treason, they sent armies to the colony to put the rebellion down.

and they lost, so it wasn't treason, it was the founding of a new country.

the founders based their claim that they were being taxed but denied any vote for those who taxed. The confederacy didn't even make that claim. Your analogy is false.

By what logic is lack of representation the only justification for secession? Taxation with representation turned out to be worse than taxation without representation.

 

[bripat9643]

If those claiming secession is permitted because it doesn't say it's not by the Constitution, how can they claim the Union is no longer Perpetual when it was, clearly, in the beginning and the Constitution does not say it no longer is?

You appear to be suffering the delusion that the Articles of Confederation are still in effect. When was the last time they were cited in a Supreme Court case?

 

[bripat9643]

The Union was made more perfect by the new constitution, while remaining Perpetual.
Show where the Perpetual Union ended.
This is what the states voluntarily joined and promised to uphold. This is the covenant secessionists sought to break. This is their failed rebellion.

It's a logical argument, and I believe it finds support in Texas v. White, but even that was not unanimous and was roundly criticized. But, I don't really think it's more, or less, a smoking gun the quotes by the founders ... cutting both ways.

Texas V. White doesn't support anything except the fact that there is no bar so low that a Supreme Court justice will not slither under it to rule in favor of his benefactor.

 

[bripat9643]

The Union was made more perfect by the new constitution, while remaining Perpetual.
Show where the Perpetual Union ended.
This is what the states voluntarily joined and promised to uphold. This is the covenant secessionists sought to break. This is their failed rebellion.

You've already been told 1000 times where it ended. Read the Constitution. Where does it say anything about a "perpetual union?"

 

[bripat9643]

Equating the American struggle for independence from a foreign empire to the seditious effort to destroy a voluntarily joined union requires a very special intellect.

"Voluntarily joined" is right. And that means a state is free to leave when it wants to. THINK

Nope. Once a State joined the United States it ceased to be the sole sovereign of its territory. It shared concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government, each a sovereign over the territory within a State.

In order for any territorial changes to be made you need the consent of both sovereigns. Look at DC. It required the permission of Virginia and Maryland, along with the Federal Government. Only when both sovereigns were in agreement could the territorial changes be made.

The US government never granted its consent to any changes in territory. Ergo, no changes were made.

It would be akin to two people owning a house. And one of them 'declaring' that they are the sole owners of the house ....because they say so. The declaration doesn't amount to much.

You keep spouting this ridiculous dreck even though you have absolutely nothing to support it. Federal "sovereignty" included only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. Preventing a state from seceding isn't one of the powers listed.

End of story.

The rest of your post is the usual made-up trash.

 

[bripat9643]

[The Secession argument is that it was *within* the system of laws to secede. That it was constitutionally permissible. And this the founders generally didn't accept. With the most constitutionally relevant founders rejecting it explicitly. They recognized neither the right to nullify nor the right to secede under the constitution.

The tenth amendment gives states the constitutional right to secede.

Nope. The federal government is constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over all the territory in the US, including the territory within every state by the Supremacy Clause. For a State to secede they would have to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power: the aforementioned jurisdiction.

And stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something the States cannot do. See the 10th amendment.

The federal government has no constitutionally delegated power to prevent a state from seceding. There is no federal law outlawing secession. Therefore, the supremacy clause is irrelevant with respect to secession.

How many times are you going to ride on this merry-go-round of circular logic?

 

[bripat9643]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.

I'm sure the english called it treason but they didn't think it. Simply leaving a country is not treason.

Wait, so your argument is to tell us what the English *thought*, with your alternative narration being explicitly contradicted by what the English *said*?

That's silly. You're merely ignoring the English response to the Declaration of Independence and inserting whatever you make up in its place. Not only did the English consider the Declaration of Independence to be Treason, they sent armies to the colony to put the rebellion down.

and they lost, so it wasn't treason, it was the founding of a new country.

The argument being refuted is that simply leaving a country is not treason. Obvious, it is.

Obviously it isn't. Read the Constitution. It defines treason, and secession doesn't meet the definition.

 

[Skylar]

Did the signers of the declaration of independence commit treason against England and King George? I'm sure the english considered it treason, but the founders considered it founding a new nation. What you call it depends on where you sit and whether you win or lose.

I'm sure the english called it treason but they didn't think it. Simply leaving a country is not treason.

Wait, so your argument is to tell us what the English *thought*, with your alternative narration being explicitly contradicted by what the English *said*?

That's silly. You're merely ignoring the English response to the Declaration of Independence and inserting whatever you make up in its place. Not only did the English consider the Declaration of Independence to be Treason, they sent armies to the colony to put the rebellion down.

and they lost, so it wasn't treason, it was the founding of a new country.

The argument being refuted is that simply leaving a country is not treason. Obvious, it is.

Obviously it isn't. Read the Constitution. It defines treason, and secession doesn't meet the definition.

Ceasing territory of the US is an act of war. As is attacking US troops. The South did the first with secession. They did the second with their attack on Ft. Sumpter.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[]

Seizing territory of the US is an act of war. As is attacking US troops. The South did the first with secession. They did the second with their attack on Ft. Sumpter.

Forts in the south were built as much by southern money as northern. Why does the north get to say "those forts belong to us"?