If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

[bripat9643]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

Quitting the club as you call necessitates violating the Supremacy Clause so they can't constitutionally do it.

Right, so a club can prevent you from quitting?

Sorry, but that theory is utterly idiotic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

The residents of the various states are also, and foremost, citizens of the United States. No individual state has the right to take away the rights of US citizens, even if they are residents of that state.

 

[bripat9643]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

The original documents that created the nation, the Articles of Confederation, used the term. The Constitution continued the Union with modifications to the government.

Yeah, it was so "perpetual" that the Founding Father's threw it into the waste bin when they wrote and passed the Constitution.

no, they didn't. the union remained, the government changed - it became 'a more perfect union' not a different union.

How can you claim the union "remained" when an entirely new contract was drawn up and the old one was thrown into the waste bin?

You are simply immune to facts and logic. No amount of proof would convince you your delusions are not reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

Quitting the club as you call necessitates violating the Supremacy Clause so they can't constitutionally do it.

Right, so a club can prevent you from quitting?

Sorry, but that theory is utterly idiotic.

States that ratified the Constitution and states that joined afterward voluntarily obligated themselves to the law of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

The residents of the various states are also, and foremost, citizens of the United States. No individual state has the right to take away the rights of US citizens, even if they are residents of that state.

Horseshit. Before the Civil War they were first and foremost citizens of their respective states. Before the Civil War, the inhabitants of Virginia referred to themselves as Virginians, not as Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

Quitting the club as you call necessitates violating the Supremacy Clause so they can't constitutionally do it.

Right, so a club can prevent you from quitting?

Sorry, but that theory is utterly idiotic.

States that ratified the Constitution and states that joined afterward voluntarily obligated themselves to the law of the Constitution.

Only until they decided to secede. There is no evidence to the contrary, just a lot of ridiculous syllogisms constructed by the Lincoln cult.

 

[bripat9643]

'Perpetual Union'.

Where is there "perpetual union." The preamble contains the word Posterity, which I think supports "no secession."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, the preamble has no force of law.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes the subordination of the States to federal law.

Only until they secede. If you join a club, you have to follow its rules, but only until you quit the club.

The residents of the various states are also, and foremost, citizens of the United States. No individual state has the right to take away the rights of US citizens, even if they are residents of that state.

Horseshit. Did Ukraine have a right to secede from the Soviet Union? If your theory is correct, then you would have to say they didn't. Furthermore, anyone who wants to remain a citizen of the United States is free to do so. They simply won't be subject to the laws of the United States in whatever state that secedes.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. The really ignorant thing about this tempest in a teapot is that one man on a hi-lift could have hung the Confederate Battle Flag at half mast in a matter of an hour or so, and there would have been zero controversy. Leaving it flying at full staff while the US and state flag were at half mast was an insult to much of the population of South Carolina.

 

[bripat9643]

There have been debates over whether states have the right to secede from the US. Currently, the SCOTUS says they can't, but that was not the case in 1861 and it wasn't even settled after the Civil War. It has remained a constitutional question which has been highly debated through the years.

When we look at our actual founding as a country, we see that our foundation as a nation rests on the argument:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

One can clearly argue that it's not only our human right to secede, we are required to declare the causes of it. So is this, "do as we say and not as we do" time? Because, clearly we have the human right to declare secession from ANY government at ANY time.

That argument does not logically work, though it's been tried. The Founders justification for rebellion was that they were denied representation. The Founders repeatedly asked to be allowed a voice in parliament, but it was denied. "Taxation without representation."

The South was never denied representation. However, their argument was that with the Missouri compromise dead, eventually there would be a majority in the senate from non-slave states.

Your theory is based on the premise that representation justifies whatever the government does. Only a fascist would accept such a notion. What if the representatives vote to make gay marriage illegal or to implement racial segregation? Are you going to claim those are perfectly valid decisions?

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. The really ignorant thing about this tempest in a teapot is that one man on a hi-lift could have hung the Confederate Battle Flag at half mast in a matter of an hour or so, and there would have been zero controversy. Leaving it flying at full staff while the US and state flag were at half mast was an insult to much of the population of South Carolina.

That much is probably true. Furthermore, it was possibly just a bureaucratic oversight. The staff probably had instructions on what to do on such occasions and lowering the Confederate flag wasn't in those instructions.

 

[bripat9643]

The north invaded the south. You fail

there was no invasion.you cannot invade your own country.

It wasn't Lincoln's country, asshole. They seceded. Do you know what "seceded" means" Look it up.

good lord you're dumb. sure, they said they seceded. i could say i'm king of the andals and the first men, lord of the Seven kingdoms, and protector of the realm. doesn't mean i get to plant my ass on the iron throne.

the secession was illegal. they never left the united states, they just played at it.

The ONLY WAY Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation could be Constitutional was IF the CSA was it's own sovereign country. As states of the United States, he did not have such authority under the Constitution. It was ONLY because the CSA was an "foreign enemy of state" that he could render the proclamation legally.

Just an FYI.

so you say. and you may be right. doesn't matter. the secession was not legal, the never actually seceded, they just played at it.

It was perfectly legal and moral. Lincoln's invasion was treason and a war crime.

 

[G.T.]

Then move thefuggoutta here bripat

 

[ogibillm]

no, it's settled. texas v white, 1869. individual states cannot secede

It's "settled" only if you have a big appetite for horseshit. Lincoln put a majority of the justices on the court that made that decision.

it's settled if you follow the constitution. that's the case law clarifying the constitution. that's the law of the land.

What does it mean to "follow the Constitution." The decision may have the force of law, but that doesn't make it correct in any objective sense. Of course, the Nuremberg laws also had the force of law.

you're confused. secession is not permitted by the constitution. this is made clear in the texas v white case. when one adheres to, or follows the constitution, one knows that case law does not 'have the force of law' but is in fact clarification of existing law.

As I have already explained, Texas v. White is a bullshit decision. It's so obviously flawed that you have to be brained damaged not to see the problem with the arguments used.

Only morons believe case law is the final authority on the Constitution.

if supreme court decisions are not the final authority on the Constitution, what is?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The confederate states were united on one main issue; they were not willing to out-law slavery. If the United States of America outlawed slavery, they did not want to be part of the United States.
The flag represents pro-slavery and treason to the USA.
Most of those who fought for the South were victims of where they lived and a war their leaders chose to lead them in to. They can be honored for their loyalty to where they lived but the flag represents the slavery and treason their leaders promoted.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

you're ability to paint a war started to guarantee slavery as something noble is sickening.

And you thinking you can judge people that lived in a different time by todays standards is equally sickening.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's standards of feeling slavery is horrifically wrong is a standard we should not apply to others? I think anyone who stands up for slavery at any point in history is SICK!!!

 

[my2¢]

Let's face it. Southerners fought against Northern aggression and for their freedom. They were patriotic Americans sick of seeing their country going the wrong way. That's why people typically fly the Stars and Bars.
But we got over that and healed and the descendents of those Confederates went on to serve the American army and win our wars.
But those who want to censor, who want to denigrate the struggle of our Southern ancestors, who want to demonize others for holding opinions contrary to theirs are no better than jihhadis and communists, who want to ban anything contrary to their religion. They are the hater dupes of the public world.

That may be the fairy tale you were taught but the South was the aggressor. You see the underground railroad didn't end at the Mason Dixon Line. Per the Supreme Court, citizens in Northern states were committing a federal offense by following their conscience and aiding escaped slaves. Are you foolish enough to believe your Southern boys were screaming "states rights" in the 1850's? Nah, it took the loss of political power to ignite their hissy fit. Get off your high horse when talking about dupes.

 

[Ame®icano]

None, but Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until it became necessary to wage total war to keep them from seceding.

Uhm, I thought Emancipation Proclamation came two years after war started...

 

[ogibillm]

Roof's heinous act is just an excuse for the left to bash and attack the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag's original intended meaning had nothing to do with Roof's actions and disturbed beliefs.

the confederate flag was used to lead troops into battle in defense of slavery. you know, subjugation of one race by another. i think that ties in pretty well to roof's actions and beliefs.

 

[bripat9643]

Then move thefuggoutta here bripat

You move, asshole.

 

[SwimExpert]

If you oppose the Confederate flag you oppose the American flag too

Every single day, Rabbi proves just how much he hates America. He's gonna be finished making his suicide vest any day now.