Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

There is no possibility of legal secession, so simply declaring to secede only means rebellion and invites being suppressed.

You keep saying that. When are you going to prove it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Illegally, illegitimately, by a bunch of traitorous dogs. They were put down, and to have delusional fools like you take up their treason is beyond absurd.

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

 

[Skylar]

The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave.

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

Nope. The United States is the States and territories and holdings.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

And this from a ruling that predates the Civil war by more than 40 years. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were still alive when this ruling came down. The States are part of the United States.

This distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is made up pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized under our system of law. Nor has ever been. As ALL the United States is federal territory. Though most of it is shared with individual States. ANd since the territory belongs to BOTH the States and the Federal Government, there's no way that a State alone could make territorial decisions. Both sovereigns would have to agree.

And both didn't.

 

[bripat9643]

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

If New York has the right to secede, then so does every other state. You can't claim some states have rights that other states don't have. They were all admitted to the Union on the same basis, as sovereign states.

 

[Skylar]

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

A federal territory is one in which ONLY federal authority exists. There's no such place for the States. There is no scenario where ONLY state government has jurisdiction. As every state is also federal territory. Though there are instances where federal holdings don't exist in any state. DC would be an example. And when DC was created, the State ceding the territory had to consent. The Federal government couldn't just unilaterally seize the land.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

As I've explained to you 1000 times, it was federal property, not federal territory. If the U.S government owned a warehouse in Mexico, it wouldn't have the right to declare war if the Mexican government kicked them off the property and repossessed it.

Nope. The United States is the States and territories and holdings.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

Longborough v. Blake (1820)

And this from a ruling that predates the Civil war by more than 40 years. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were still alive when this ruling came down. The States are part of the United States.

This distinction between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' is made up pseudo-legal gibberish that isn't recognized under our system of law. Nor has ever been. As ALL the United States is federal territory. Though most of it is shared with individual States. ANd since the territory belongs to BOTH the States and the Federal Government, there's no way that a State alone could make territorial decisions. Both sovereigns would have to agree.

And both didn't.

That doesn't sound like the kind of language Jefferson or Adams would use. Please cite the source.

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

A federal territory is one in which ONLY federal authority exists. There's no such place for the States. There is no scenario where ONLY state government has jurisdiction. As every state is also federal territory. Though there are instances where federal holdings don't exist in any state. DC would be an example. And when DC was created, the State ceding the territory had to consent. The Federal government couldn't just unilaterally seize the land.

That's how things were before the Constitution was ratified, and that's how it is after a state secedes.

 

[Skylar]

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

If New York has the right to secede, then so does every other state. You can't claim some states have rights that other states don't have. They were all admitted to the Union on the same basis, as sovereign states.

There's no provision in the Constitution for a 'conditional ratification'. Nor in the constitutional convention. Either you ratify the constitution or you don't. And if ratified, its rafied as written. NY ratified it. Thus, they ratified it as written.

There's no mention anywhere in the Constitution of secession. Nor is there any mention of 'conditional ratification'.

You've imagined all of it. And your imagination is legally meaningless. Just your distinction between 'federal property' is and 'federal territory' is made up gibberish. All State territory is federal territory that the State and Federal governments have jurisdiction over concurrently. Federal Holdings are those areas where ONLY the federal government has jurisdiction. There is no corollary for the States, where ONLY States have jurisdiction. As every state is part of the United States. But not all federal holdings are part of States.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

A federal territory is one in which ONLY federal authority exists. There's no such place for the States. There is no scenario where ONLY state government has jurisdiction. As every state is also federal territory. Though there are instances where federal holdings don't exist in any state. DC would be an example. And when DC was created, the State ceding the territory had to consent. The Federal government couldn't just unilaterally seize the land.

That's how things were before the Constitution was ratified, and that's how it is after a state secedes.

Once the States joined the United States, they ceased to be lone sovereigns of their territory. Instead, the territory fell under both State and Federal jurisdictions, having two sovereigns.

For any territorial decision to be made, BOTH sovereigns would have to agree. Neither can unilaterally act on territorial decisions without the agreement of the other. Thus there is no way for a State to return to the status of sole sovereign without the consent of the concurrent sovereign that also has jurisdiction over the territory. It would be like two people owning a house. And one unilaterally selling it. It can't be done as the lone seller lacks the authority to sell it without the consent of the co-owner.

The federal government never granted their consent. Thus the territorial status of the State never changed. It remained under concurrent jurisdiction.

 

[bripat9643]

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

A federal territory is one in which ONLY federal authority exists. There's no such place for the States. There is no scenario where ONLY state government has jurisdiction. As every state is also federal territory. Though there are instances where federal holdings don't exist in any state. DC would be an example. And when DC was created, the State ceding the territory had to consent. The Federal government couldn't just unilaterally seize the land.

That's how things were before the Constitution was ratified, and that's how it is after a state secedes.

Once the States joined the United States, they ceased to be lone sovereigns of their territory. Instead, the territory fell under both State and Federal jurisdictions, having two sovereigns.

For any territorial decision to be made, BOTH sovereigns would have to agree. Neither can unilaterally act on territorial decisions without the agreement of the other. Thus there is no way for a State to return to the status of sole sovereign without the consent of the concurrent sovereign that also has jurisdiction over the territory. It would be like two people owning a house. And one unilaterally selling it. It can't be done as the lone seller lacks the authority to sell it without the consent of the co-owner.

The federal government never granted their consent. Thus the territorial status of the State never changed. It remained under concurrent jurisdiction.

That's your theory. Unfortunately it has no basis in fact. What language in the Constitution supports it? Answer: none.

 

[Skylar]

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

A federal territory is one in which ONLY federal authority exists. There's no such place for the States. There is no scenario where ONLY state government has jurisdiction. As every state is also federal territory. Though there are instances where federal holdings don't exist in any state. DC would be an example. And when DC was created, the State ceding the territory had to consent. The Federal government couldn't just unilaterally seize the land.

That's how things were before the Constitution was ratified, and that's how it is after a state secedes.

Once the States joined the United States, they ceased to be lone sovereigns of their territory. Instead, the territory fell under both State and Federal jurisdictions, having two sovereigns.

For any territorial decision to be made, BOTH sovereigns would have to agree. Neither can unilaterally act on territorial decisions without the agreement of the other. Thus there is no way for a State to return to the status of sole sovereign without the consent of the concurrent sovereign that also has jurisdiction over the territory. It would be like two people owning a house. And one unilaterally selling it. It can't be done as the lone seller lacks the authority to sell it without the consent of the co-owner.

The federal government never granted their consent. Thus the territorial status of the State never changed. It remained under concurrent jurisdiction.

That's your theory. Unfortunately it has no basis in fact. What language in the Constitution supports it? Answer: none.

Mention in the constitution? Your entire argument is based on 1) Conditional Ratification of the Constitution. 2) the Right to Secede.

Neither of which are mentioned anywhere in the constitution. If lack of mention in the constitution is your standard of 'no basis in fact', then you're fucked. As nothing you've argued in mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. And your argument being the laughable nonsense that the States weren't part of the United States.

Which the USSC has obviously contradicted in a ruling that predate the civil war by 4 decades, affirming that the United States is composed of the States and territories.

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

We'd have to ignore the USSC and instead believe you. When by your own standards, your claims have no basis in facts.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

If New York has the right to secede, then so does every other state. You can't claim some states have rights that other states don't have. They were all admitted to the Union on the same basis, as sovereign states.

There's no provision in the Constitution for a 'conditional ratification'. Nor in the constitutional convention. Either you ratify the constitution or you don't. And if ratified, its rafied as written. NY ratified it. Thus, they ratified it as written.

There's no mention anywhere in the Constitution of secession. Nor is there any mention of 'conditional ratification'.

That's means there is also no language against it. The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

You've imagined all of it. And your imagination is legally meaningless. Just your distinction between 'federal property' is and 'federal territory' is made up gibberish. All State territory is federal territory that the State and Federal governments have jurisdiction over concurrently. Federal Holdings are those areas where ONLY the federal government has jurisdiction. There is no corollary for the States, where ONLY States have jurisdiction. As every state is part of the United States. But not all federal holdings are part of States.

You're the one who is imagining things. None of the claims you make are supported by any language in the Constitution, and of the ratification documents or any documents period.

You're just making shit up out of whole cloth. Most liberal theories about the law and society are pure fantasy.

 

[Bombur]

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

And yet he promised repeatedly not to abolish slavery, otherwise he would never have been elected. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles was first, last, and foremost a politician who ran for office several times until he found the magic words to win. Like Obama, he lacked even an ounce of geniune character. It's all a light show and suckers like you fall for it every time.

In order to preserve the union. Once the South rebelled he changed his plan because it no longer made sense. He didn't hide his feelings towards slavery when he was campaigning, but he campaigned on a solution to slavery that didn't involve war. War was thrust upon him by the south.

Lincoln had incredible character. He was incredibly clear in his arguments which were often presented concisely and logically. This can be hard for people like yourself who are not logical thinkers but emotional ones.

That's pure made up horseshit.

Lincoln was the Supreme liar and ultimate hypocrite. He was a mass murderer. He wiped his ass on the Constitution. He supported crony capitalism and doled out huge sums to his favorite business cronies.

That's the liberal conceptions "character."

lol

You are absolutely terrible at staying on topic. It is like you can't help but deflect every conversation into something else because it is so obvious your world view is delusional nonsense.

Everything I said is correct. Deal with it.

You haven't posted anything correct since you joined this forum.

I take great pride in the fact you think that so thanks.

No matter how hard you try to make the civil war about a legal act by the South you still have all the evidence that demonstrates that the South wasn't even really pretending it was a legal act subject to the law of the land. Instead they started military action immediately including firing on US soldiers.

You will deny reality and deflect for 1000 pages but in the end you will be wrong just like you were wrong in the beginning. The facts are not on your side.

You are perfectly welcome to continue to throw your delusional hissy fit.

 

[Skylar]

The State wasn't the only sovereign of the territory. The US federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. When both have jurisdiction over the territory, no territorial decisions can be made without the other. The State doesn't have the authority to make unilateral decisions. As without the consent of the other sovereign, no territorial decisions would be valid.

The federal government has "concurrent jurisdiction" over Yellowstone Park. Does that mean it's not part of Wyoming?

Wyoming was federal territory before it was granted permission to become a state. If Wyoming wants to renounce its statehood,

it can revert to being US territory. Property of the United States.

If New York has the right to secede, then so does every other state. You can't claim some states have rights that other states don't have. They were all admitted to the Union on the same basis, as sovereign states.

There's no provision in the Constitution for a 'conditional ratification'. Nor in the constitutional convention. Either you ratify the constitution or you don't. And if ratified, its rafied as written. NY ratified it. Thus, they ratified it as written.

There's no mention anywhere in the Constitution of secession. Nor is there any mention of 'conditional ratification'.

That's means there is also no language against it. The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

How can there be a 'conditional ratification' if there is no provision for it in the constitution nor mention of it in the constitutional convention?

You're wiped your ass with your own standards. As you insisted that if there is no mention of it in the constitution then there's no basis for it in fact.

And the constitution goes into elaborate detail about all the different kind of laws that the US congress can make. How then could these laws be applied to the States if the federal government had no jurisdiction over that territory? If US federal laws applied to the States then the federal government clearly had jurisdiction over the states. And if the US federal government has jurisdiction over the territory, then clearly the States and the Federal government share jurisdiction, each being sovereigns over the territory.

Your argument is *literally* that the States aren't part of the United States. And that's the biggest load of horseshit ever. Of course the States were part of the US. And of course the Federal government had jurisdiction over said States. As the USSC recognized as early as 1820:

The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other.

How do you deal with this obvious contradiction of your foundational assumptions? You don't. You ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. But ignoring caselaw doesn't make it go away. Or make it any less authoritative.

And of course, there's no distinction in the constitution between 'federal property' and 'federal territory' in terms of jurisdiction of federal law on the States. None. You've made it up, pulled sideways out of your ass. And when challenged to show us anything in the constitution or the courts to back this assertion....

......you've got nothing. Are you starting to see why your bullshit isn't part of our law or our constitution, nor ever has been?

You're the one who is imagining things. None of the claims you make are supported by any language in the Constitution, and of the ratification documents or any documents period.

Show me. Don't tell me. You're the one claiming the constitutional distinction between federal 'property' and federal 'territory'. Show me anything in the constitution that backs your claim related to US federal jurisdiction over the States.

Anything. And yes, your standards do apply to you. Per your own standards, if there's no mention in the Constitution, then you have no basis in fact. Can you demonstrate such a distinction in the constitution?

Of course you can't. All you can do is offer us the same stale pseudo-legal bullshit that has never once been recognized as legally valid in the history of our nation.

 

[paperview]

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so ******* wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School

Yes. "In toto and forever."

 

[bripat9643]

read the document, dum

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so ******* wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School

Yes. "In toto and forever."

Read the ratification document, dumbass. It says the people of New York reserve the right to resume all powers granted to the federal government.

 

[there4eyeM]

The positive statement that Perpetual Union was and is in place has not been refuted. Therefore, the legality of secession is not arguable.

 

[kaz]

Wrong, revisionista.

These goofballs think it Kentucky, for example, decided to secede, they could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now.

Some bizarre notion these cons have -- that you can just steal Federal property, eh?

LOL, liberals are so slow.

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter
The didn't, they dug in
Four months later South Carolina fought to remove them

But do you follow that? Nope. You come back with "Kentucky, for example, ... could just take over Fort Knox, and say, hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now"

LOL, you didn't follow the point at all, Holmes

You apparently seem to be the one who is not following.

Did you miss the post about land that was FEDERAL PROPERTY in South Carolina - that you think ....

pay attention now -- SC could just up and declare all the federal forts they had taken (and ship) theirs -- and say "hey, too bad fellas. It's ours now -- because that's pretty much what you're saying when you say:

"The US government had no right to be there once South Carolina told them to leave."

You can't just steal Federal property. Idiot.

Right, it's South Carolina ... land ... moron. South Carolina did not declare ownership of the possessions of the Fort, they told the Union to leave. And it was ... four months ... before they attempted to remove them. How stupid are you?

^ kaz.

Too stupid for words, and always, always wrong.

You made shit up and then just kept saying I was wrong. I'd say you're a rhetorical genius, but that's just too much sarcasm for me, I might pull a muscle. You claimed that Kentucky could claim the contents of Fort Knox, not just kick the feds off the land. So, show that South Carolina claimed the contents of Fort Knox, they didn't just tell the Feds to leave

 

[Skylar]

read the document, dum

The bottom line is that three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could secede if they wanted to. No one voiced a complaint when they were admitted to the Union. That means those provisions are valid.

Argh.

You are so ******* wrong.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 2 | Teaching American History

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:

"But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School

Yes. "In toto and forever."

Read the ratification document, dumbass. It says the people of New York reserve the right to resume all powers granted to the federal government.

There's no provision for conditional ratification. None. Nor have there ever been. Its mentioned no where in the constitution. No where in the constitutional congress. Nor has there ever been 'conditional ratification' of an amendment. Or 'conditional admittance' or a US state. Nor has there every been any legal recognition of any 'special' right or power poessed by any particular state as a condition of ratifying the constitution.

Either the constitution is ratified, or it isn't. And NY acknowledged that they ratified the the constitution. Thus, they ratified the constitution as written. And there is no mention of 'conditional ratification' nor 'secession' in the constitution.

By your own standards, if there's no mention in the constitution, there is no basis in fact. Nixing your entire argument by your own standards.

 

[kaz]

The Union was told to leave Fort Sumpter...

Illegally, illegitimately, by a bunch of traitorous dogs. They were put down, and to have delusional fools like you take up their treason is beyond absurd.

At that point, the Union was an occupying army. You should look up what "Federal" government actually means

No it wasn't it was still the Federal army on US soil.

Nope. It was no longer U.S. soil. How many times does the meaning of "secession" have to be explained to you?

It's no coincidence that liberals are unable to absorb and process new information, you have to be unable to reason to be a liberal