Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

[bripat9643]

Per the Constitution South Carolina ceded the fort to the federal Government years before the civil war.it was not part of South Carolina.

They sold it or gave it to the federal government. It remained South Carolina territory, just as Edwards Airforce is part of California.

Wrong Federal property is FEDERAL the State has no ownership or jurisdiction.

So state laws don't apply to the Post Office? Does that mean they have the right to ignore Florida building codes when they build it? How about Florida labor law? Drug laws? Can the federal government sell drugs on the Post Office property if it wants to?

I don't think you've thought out your position on this too well.

 

[candycorn]

The COURT DOES NOT Have the final say on ANYTHING...the people DO. Get used to it.

Ahh, the fiction of your world.

The people have the last word via the election of members of Congress. Congress can pass legislation limiting the scope of the Supreme Court with exceptions and specific regulations. They have never chosen to do so.

The people in a republic are represented by elected officials. We are not a pure democracy.

Basically the same point I made on post 640. There is recourse. Much like saying a softball team can score 1000 runs in an inning. Sure it can but it isnt going to happen despite some fantasy some here have.

 

[candycorn]

Wrong as usual, read the article for the Court. The Supreme Court is final authority on all matters involving the US Government. It is in the Constitution. I once believed they did not to, then I actually read the article. You might want to try it.

How much patience have you ever seen me have with someone saying, "This is what I believe the law says, no I won't quote it, but it does, and if you don't agree with me, you haven't read it"? What makes you think YOU will fare any better?

Consider the possibility, instead, that I have read it, and I'm just brighter than you, so I comprehended it better.

Before we go any further with you and Corndog's lame "I'll just tell you over and over what I think it says, because there are no quotes to support my beliefs" bullshit, why don't I just cut to the chase?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Now then. Why doesn't one of you point out the specific verbiage that contains "judicial review"?

The words do not have to appear. When a citizen or a State bring a suit against the US the Supreme Court is either the primary Judicial court or the appellate one. The COURT rules on all matters involving the US. That means if I challenge a law and it gets to the Supreme Court they decide if the law is Constitutional or not IN THAT CASE. As specified by the Constitution.

The words do not have to appear.

660 posts to get to something these morons should have learned in middle school.

 

[bripat9643]

Per the Constitution South Carolina ceded the fort to the federal Government years before the civil war.it was not part of South Carolina.

They sold it or gave it to the federal government. It remained South Carolina territory, just as Edwards Airforce is part of California.

Wrong Federal property is FEDERAL the State has no ownership or jurisdiction.

ROFL! So if a civilian employee at Vandenburg Airforce Base murders another civilian employee, where does the trial take place?

 

[bripat9643]

The property belonged to the Federal Government it was BOUGHT by them years before the war.

Yeah, and I bought property in Florida a few years ago. Does that mean it's no longer part of Florida? The federal government owns the Post Office down the street from me. Is that part of Florida? Do the laws of Florida no longer pertain once you cross over onto the Post Office property?

This is an incredibly dumb argument.

Really? Ever been on a Federal base? Notice that once you enter the base may or may not enforce4 State law and they have their own Federal laws. For example, a State may have conceal carry, but guess what? Not on most federal property.

Most federal buildings are not actually owned by the Government but Bases are. They had their own laws and regulations and the State had no authority.

Read the Constitution it clearly states that ONLY the Congress can dispose of federal property. Shall I quote it for you?

A property owned by the federal government is treated the same as a private property. Private property owners can ban people from carrying guns also. Ownership of property gives you all kinds of rights and privileges. However, breaking the laws of the state where they are located isn't one of them. If civilian A murders civilian B on a military base, the trial will take place in a local court according to state and local laws.

That's the bottom line.

 

[bripat9643]

The base was not in a foreign Country. South Carolina FREELY ceded the fort to the Federal Government years before the civil war. Further Congress not the President decide what to do about Federal property. Lincoln had no power to abandon the fort. And the only Federal property that the South got was seized by force. The only forts they got were either unmanned or so poorly manned they could not resist the force brought to bear to seize them.

Article IV is clear, if congress is not seated the President must use force to protect the States in the Union. Only Congress can declare a State not in the Union, not the State. Article IV states that the Government must act to ensure a republican form of Government and that all rights and privileges of citizens are protected.

Sorry, but at the moment South Carolina seceded from the United States, it became a foreign country. And Japan has "ceded" those military bases to the United States in exactly the same way South Carolina "ceded" Ft. Sumter, but I doubt you'd consider that to mean it's okay for the United States to hold onto them in the face of Japanese demands.

Wrong again Foreign nations make treaties that state how and it what manner the US can use it. Foreign law still applies if in the treaty. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that ONLY Congress can dispose of federal property. State laws are superseded and federal regulations and laws apply.

Sorry, but if a host country wants our bases gone, then they go, regardless of what any treaty says. A few years ago we had to vacate several military bases in the Philippines even though we had a treaty that said we had a right to stay there for 99 years after WW II.

 

[bripat9643]

My state, AZ, is pissed that they have no jurisdiction over land in our national parks, which belong to the federal government. They even put a referendum on the last election ballot, giving the state the right to CLAIM such jurisdiction. It didn't pass. For one thing the state is broke, so why do they want to maintain a national park? For another, by law, all natioanl parks and national monuments are the property of the united states government. The same is true of US military bases.Destruction of Federal property is a crime. It can be regarded as a simple felony, or insurrection. Both are illegal. Firing on Ft. Sumpter is an illegal act under federal law, no matter how you spin it. KIlling federal armed forces personnel is also a crime, unless the beligerant has been recognized as a internationally legal entity that has declared war. Otherwise, it is insurrection or terrorism.

Get this through your head: federal law doesn't apply to foreign countries. After SC seceded, it was a foreign country.

 

[bripat9643]

Article 1 Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 4 section 2

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Arti8cle IV section 3



Article IV section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article VI 2nd paragraph

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 9 and amendment 10 do not grant the right to leave the Union to the States as the previous articles show that once in the Union Congress has supremacy over any state action or law and is specifically charged with protecting the rights of citizens even against States. When all these are taken together they clearly demonstrate that one can only leave the Union by action of Congress.

U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

How is any of that applicable to a foreign country?

 

[bripat9643]

article iv article vi and all the other cited articles grant powers to the federal government.

which "foregoing" power specifically authorizes fedgov to prevent secession?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

The supremacy clause makes all the other quoted powers supreme. A state may not unilaterally leave the USA. All the listed powers negate any such attempt and require that in order to leave one must get permission from Congress.

Sorry, but the supremacy clause only applies to states in the union. If a state secedes, it's not in the union.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that to join one must get approval from Congress. Yet it is clearly understood that that is in fact the law. One can assume that if to join requires an act of Congress to leave would also.

Actually, you're mistaken. To become a state of the United States, it is necessary to first be a territory of the United States (I don't know that that's ever been codified into law, but it's simply a practical fact that the United States is not going to accept a petition for statehood from someplace that isn't currently under its control). The Constitution specifically states, in Article IV, that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States". This would include accepting the proposed Constitutions of territories wishing to become states.

The states created the Constitution and the Federal government. The idea that they can't unmake it once they make it is utterly absurd.

Which means for certain that a State that was formerly a Territory can't possibly secede, because it was a US possession. It was territory owned by the United States government.

Letting it become a state did not grant it some sort of nationhood, or independence. Letting it become a state meant that it remained part of the US, but under a different status.

Any attempt by a state that was a former territory to secede, i.e., to give up its statehood, would simply cause it to revert to being a territory once again.

So some states are more equal than other states? Is that really what your saying?

 

[bripat9643]

Before 1880 abortion was legal in this country.
What else is new?

Of all the people in this thread who are saying secession is a constitutional right because nowhere in the Constitution does it say it isn't,

how many of them do you suppose would also then say that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy must also be a constitutional right,

since nowhere in the Constitution does it say it isn't?

Eh? How many of you experts want to sign onto that simple logic?

How about healthcare and Social Security? Your theory is that anything not specifically permitted is prohibited, so obviously the ACA and SS are both unconstitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

How many of those did the Viet Cong have? How about The French Resistance? American Patriots during the Revolutionary war?I suggest everyone read the NorthWest Trilogy by H.A. Covington. I bout his last book a few months back and just haven't had a chance to read it yet but I will soon...his books are my go to books to read when I am down and think its all in vain.

The 350,000 draftees per year from North Viet Nam trained and sent as NVA regulars is what was the problem in Nam.
We kicked the shit out of the Cong during Tet and wiped out almost all their command and control in country.
Not taking anything away from the brave freedom fighters such as my ancestors that fought the British but that was 240 years ago with an army that had to travel thousands of miles to come here to fight.
Nothing compared to air craft carrier groups, stealth weapons and the technology of today's military.
Militia groups would be pink mist without even knowing or hearing what hit them.

Sure they have the technology but its never the generals that give up in a guerilla war its the accountants. Make it to expensive for them to continue on and they will throw in the towel.Plus you cant kill what you can't see.

These are the same numskulls who were saying we couldn't win the Iraq war before it even started and that it was lost A few weeks after we took control of Baghdad.

The idea that the federal government is going to use napalm and cluster bombs on American citizens doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[Unkotare]

Bripolar, do you have any idea what an obsessed psycho you are making yourself out to be on this thread? You are fighting and losing a war that was settled a long time ago, and you only seem to be taking breaks long enough to wipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth and put some drops in your blood-shot, bugged-out eyes of futile rage. That vein in your temple is going to give way any second now, so it might behoove you to move on to another subject.

Just some friendly advice.

 

[BrianH]

Jefferson and Madison debated this issue shortly after the Constitution was ratified. Bottom Line: Had the Constitution forbade secession even Madison and Jefferson wouldn't have been debating the issue. The fact of the matter is that secession wasn't addressed. It was neither legal or illegal. Because it wasn't illegal and because the power of secession was not granted to the federal government, it was reserved to the states or the people via the 10th Amendment. Had it expressly prohibited secession even Madison and Jefferson wouldn't have been arguing about it; which is why the SCOTUS eventually made a ruling on it. We can go round and round about the little details and bits and pieces of the constitution that imply this and that; but plain-and-simple it didn't expressly prohibit around 1860 and based on the past actions of the colonies it was assumed to be perfectly legal.

 

[Toro]

I can see that this fantasy game can go on forever, so I will simply deliver the bottom line, and then prepare dinner.

Nobody is ever going to sucessfully suceed from the union.

I suggest that folks talk about something that is actually within our own universe and dimension, as a real possibility, like, whether or not Dean is going to rescue her career.
Chow....

Wanna bet? I highly recommend ALL STATES Secede from the Union for BREACH of Contract meaning the Ninth and Tenth...and the PEOPLE.

And the SECOND Amendment comes into play. It's time to ABOLISH the entire FED and FORCE IT to comply with the Constitution...-OR ELSE-

Or else what?

 

[editec]

Great government structures coupled with great laws are only as good as the GREAT PEOPLE who man them.

This constitution and the laws and decisions about the constitution that have flowed from it are no longer serving the people.

The system is BROKE, citizens.

It is NOT repairable, either.

 

[candycorn]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

 

[candycorn]

Great government structures coupled with great laws are only as good as the GREAT PEOPLE who man them.

This constitution and the laws and decisions about the constitution that have flowed from it are no longer serving the people.

The system is BROKE, citizens.

It is NOT repairable, either.

It would take an extraordinary measure of a new constitutional convention that forced government to act in the interest of the people as opposed to their party affiliation

Rules such as

FORCING one house to submit the other house's work for an up or down vote with in 30 days of having received it. Right now Boehner and Reid can stall legislation by simply not scheduling a vote for it.

FORCING Congress into zero-based budgeting every 10 years as to where every line item over X amount (call it a million dollars, a hundred million, whatever) has to be approved by both houses majority

FORCING redistricting every 10 years by a zip code lottery to prevent State party bosses from drawing congressional district maps that benefit them...

FORCING televison, radio, print, that run political advertisements for federal elections to run FREE ads for persons who get so many names on a petition (again, set the threshold where you like) to get the money out of elections or at least get the need for the money out of elections.

Those 4 rules alone would go a long way toward righting the ship to where the will of the people will be more vividly displayed.

 

[National Socialist]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

You are a ******* idiot...you realize that right? You can not do something that harms others because then it becomes duty to arrest you and have you answer for that crime.

 

[candycorn]

So if I call someone over to my condo, claim it is soverign land; appoint myself king, make murder legal in my kingdom and kill that person, I'm good?

And these rednecks wonder why they lost.

You are a ******* idiot...you realize that right? You can not do something that harms others because then it becomes duty to arrest you and have you answer for that crime.

What crime?

In Candy-Cornastan; murder is perfectly legal.

Any invasion of my propertry on my 1/4 floor of the high-rise condiminium complex where I live is therefore illegal, immoral, illigitmiate, illadvise, and well I'm sure there are other ills.

Just like it was during the War of Northern Aggression.


They shouldn't have been in my condo/nation-state.

I have the right to defend myself!