Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[bendog]

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?

Let me flip that a bit, please. It's indisputable that the Articles of Confederation aimed at a "perpetual" government, and the articles could only be altered via the ratification process with 9 colonies or states agreeing. It's also indisputable that the purpose of the Constitution was to further allow a stronger federal govt, in the areas of power that the federal govt would be supreme, while the BoR forbid the federal govts (but not the states) from passing laws effecting personal rights.

So, from those undisputed facts, where does one find a power for one or more states to secede without using the Constitutional provision for amendment?

 

[paperview]

[]

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"?

simple. The properties were ceded to the U.S. Government by the state legislature.

Free and clear.

The south does not get to say "those forts belong to us"

 

[Skylar]

[]

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"?

Irrelevant. They are federal enclaves. And as such the Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. In the 1860s, State laws literally didn't apply within them. States had no jurisdiction.

And of course, the Supremecy Clause establishes unambiguously that the federal government has jurisdiction through out the United States. Which includes the territory of every state.

South Carolina didn't possess the authority to 1) Unilaterally take possession of federal enclaves 2) Strip the federal government of any constitutionally designated power, like jurisdiction over all territory within the United States.

So secession was a constitutional violation. And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What the hell is "ceasing?" Did you mean siezing? It wasn't U.S. territory, numskull. It was South Carolina territory.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

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.

What the hell is "ceasing?" Did you mean siezing? It wasn't U.S. territory, numskull. It was South Carolina territory.

It was also South Carolina Territory. It is also US territory under the jurisdiction of the US federal government. What James Madison called 'concurrent government'. Take a look at the Supremecy Clause. It establishes, unambiguously, US federal jurisdiction throughout the United States. And the States are most definitely part of the United States. As is all the territory within a State.

Thus jurisdiction of territory within a State was a power delegated to the US Federal government by the constitution. And a State lacks the authority to strip the US federal government of any power delegated to it by the US constitution. Which secession is entirely dependent on.

Making secession an unconstitutional seizure of US federal territory and an unconstitutional stripping of US federal jurisdiction granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Alas, the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the right to violate the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

[]

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"?

simple. The properties were ceded to the U.S. Government by the state legislature.

Free and clear.

The south does not get to say "those forts belong to us"

Atually, yes it does. If the U.S. Government owns a warehouse in, say, Venexuela, and the government of Venezuela decides to nationalize it, there isn,t jack shit the US government can do about it except whine to the Venezuelan ambassador. Other countries are not obligated to respect our property rights.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[paperview]

Somebody tell middle finger boy Venezuela isn't part of the UNITED States and agreed, like all the States of the UNITED States, to abide by the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause.

 

[there4eyeM]

"still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"...

 

[bripat9643]

Somebody tell middle finger boy Venezuela isn't part of the UNITED States and agreed, like all the States of the UNITED States, to abide by the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause.

South Carolina was no longer part of the United states the minute it seceded. You can't go assuming in your argument a premise which has yet to be proven. Since you haven't proven a state can't secede, you can't prove that South Carolina started the Civil War.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[there4eyeM]

The proof must be that a state can secede, and that has not been done.

 

[bripat9643]

The proof must be that a state can secede, and that has not been done.

Wrongo, numskull. That isn't how logic works. We don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove big foot doesn't exist and I don't have to prove that the federal government doesn't have a power that isn't mentioned in any governing document.

 

[kaz]

When you are a member of a club you have the right to leave whenever you wish. That's what the original 13 colonies did and that's what the confederate states did in 1861. Naturally the central authorities don't like it, but what moral argument can they muster to keep you bound.?

You are removing a pocket they have their hand in, why wouldn't they consider that treason? Government for them is what they can get out of it, it's less to plunder

 

[kaz]

The proof must be that a state can secede, and that has not been done.

You fundamentally don't understand our Constitution

 

[kaz]

Treason has a specific meaning. Secession, in and of itself, does not fall under it.
18 U.S. Code 2381 - Treason US Law LII Legal Information Institute

I agree. Treason wasn't committed until the South opened fire on Fort. Sumter.

How can you betray a government you don't recognize?

 

[there4eyeM]

The proof must be that a state can secede, and that has not been done.

You fundamentally don't understand our Constitution

You fundamentally don't understand what I'm saying, or the Constitution or the United States and what it is that UNITES them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Logic is exactly what leads us to know unilateral secession is illegal.

 

[kaz]

The proof must be that a state can secede, and that has not been done.

You fundamentally don't understand our Constitution

You fundamentally don't understand what I'm saying, or the Constitution or the United States and what it is that UNITES them.

You said "the proof must be that a state can secede." That is fundamentally not understanding the Constitution. It's specifically the other way around. Read the 10th amendment

 

[kaz]

Logic is exactly what leads us to know unilateral secession is illegal.

Fallacious logic is a form of logic, yes

 

[there4eyeM]

By what logic can a state that joins a Perpetual Union unilaterally leave it legally?

 

[kaz]

By what logic can a state that joins a Perpetual Union unilaterally leave it legally?

Begging the question, who said it's a "perpetual union?"