Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

Thank you Rusty. How many roads, towns and schools are named after President Lincoln? How many for Burr or Arnold, two men someone like you must admire?

The North Koreans have pictures and statues of Kim Jon Stepstool everywhere and in every home. Cities are named after him as well as many babies. His likeness graces Korean currency. Even in death he commanded grief, contrived wailing in the streets.

Bripat said you people are cultists. You prove him right over and over.

"you people"? I'm going to play along, simply because it will be fun to toy with you. The "you people" who named roads, schools, towns, etc. after President Lincoln were Americans, Americans representing generations of Americans. Not members of cults, but Americans who are proud to be Americans.

Cultists, are members of the echo chamber, people who don't think for themselves but pretend, even to themselves, that they do. Cultists describe members of the NRA, and those who cherish the confederate flag, and those who dress in 18th center garb and parade around carrying photos of our elected President emblematic of Hitler.

Germans were proud to be Germans right up until the last couple of years of WW II. THey named schools, roads and building after Adolph Hitler.

You're a cultist because you deliberately propagate the myth even after being shown repeatedly that Lincoln was a monster. The rest of America is just ignorant and naive.

So the GOP is not the party of Lincoln, it's the party of the Monster.

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

States cannot secede because in order to secede they would HAVE to break federal laws, which would violate the Supremacy Clause.

btw, federal laws are constitutional until they are struck down by the Supreme Court. That is the LEGAL process for determining unconstitutionality.

Repeating this 10,000 times won't make it true. There is no law against secession. In fact, passing one would be unconstitutional since that isn't one of the powers granted to the federal government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Secession is not one thing. Secession is the sum total of everything that occurs because of the secession. The word 'secession' cannot be used to violate other laws.

 

[paperview]

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

It's in their ratification documents, bub. They was voted on and approved. These states were then accepted into the union. All you have is the opinion of a bunch of bootlicking statist blowhards.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay -- and most at the ratifying Convention -- "statist blowhards."


What do you think will happen if you secede?

OOOps. Bripat go *boom*

 

[bripat9643]

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

A state that seceded would not be part of the United States and would no longer be subject to federal law.

You really are incredibly stupid on this point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

If a state today seceded, would the residents and businesses of that state continue to pay their federal taxes?

 

[bripat9643]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

Secession is not one thing. Secession is the sum total of everything that occurs because of the secession. The word 'secession' cannot be used to violate other laws.

Only congenital numskulls are buying your supremacy clause argument. It simply doesn't apply. When you quit a club, you are no longer subject to its rules or paying dues.

 

[bripat9643]

Let me explicitly refute the second so-called irrefutable point in the OP:

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution expressly prohibits state laws that violate federal law. Secession cannot be accomplished without the violation of federal law,

therefore secession is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Since there is no law against secession, it can easily be accomplished without violating the Supremacy clause.

If a state today seceded, would the residents and businesses of that state continue to pay their federal taxes?

Of course not. Does Mexico pay taxes to the federal government?

 

[bripat9643]

New York, Virginia, and other states passed resolutions establishing their right to rescind membership in the Union at any time. So did Texas when it entered as a republic. Back then, people lacked the talent Leftists have for seeing things in the Constitution that aren't there.

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

It's in their ratification documents, bub. They was voted on and approved. These states were then accepted into the union. All you have is the opinion of a bunch of bootlicking statist blowhards.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay -- and most at the ratifying Convention -- "statist blowhards."


What do you think will happen if you secede?

OOOps. Bripat go *boom*

Three men were "most of the ratifying convention?" As I recall, there were 13 states at the time. Each of them sent a delegate to the convention. Plus there were others there who weren't official delegates like Benjamin Franklin. Notice how many signatures there are on the document. There are a lot more than three.

 

[bripat9643]

There is not one word in the 10th Amendment which makes reference to secession. There was discussion both for and against but nothing was placed in the 10th Amendment. There is a legal way through, the act of revolution. If you win, you are home free.

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

Nope. The exact second secession is approved the state is no longer subject to federal taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

A state that seceded would not be part of the United States and would no longer be subject to federal law.

You really are incredibly stupid on this point.

But the state cannot legally secede. That is the point. No one, including states, can arbitrarily, unilaterally declare themselves exempt from the law. That's absurd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

Nope. The exact second secession is approved the state is no longer subject to federal taxes.

Absurd. The Constitution does not allow states to abolish federal laws, no matter what they might call it,

including calling it secession.

 

[there4eyeM]

To repeat what has not been shown to be otherwise, no law exists against secession because it is implicitly contrary to the membership in the Perpetual Union.
It has nothing to do with Lincoln at all. Secession is rebellion and rebellion is not tolerated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 10th Amendment only allows the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

Nope. The exact second secession is approved the state is no longer subject to federal taxes.

lol, all you're doing is arguing that secession is legal because secession is legal.

You are begging the question:

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

...your claim is that secession is legal because once secession is declared, the laws of the government that were in place before the entity seceded are all voided so secession can't be illegal.

You have in that claim asserted the premise that secession itself is legal.

 

[paperview]

And
they
were
told

NO.

NO

NO.

Jesus Christ.

Your denial is a pathological, I swear,

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

It's in their ratification documents, bub. They was voted on and approved. These states were then accepted into the union. All you have is the opinion of a bunch of bootlicking statist blowhards.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay -- and most at the ratifying Convention -- "statist blowhards."


What do you think will happen if you secede?

OOOps. Bripat go *boom*

Three men were "most of the ratifying convention?" As I recall, there were 13 states at the time. Each of them sent a delegate to the convention. Plus there were others there who weren't official delegates like Benjamin Franklin. Notice how many signatures there are on the document. There are a lot more than three.

The NY Ratifying Convention, idiot.

The one who vetoed the idea that a state could secede.

Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

 

[NYcarbineer]

To repeat what has not been shown to be otherwise, no law exists against secession because it is implicitly contrary to the membership in the Perpetual Union.
It has nothing to do with Lincoln at all. Secession is rebellion and rebellion is not tolerated.

Like I said, it's much like the argument made that everything in the Bible is true because it's God's word,

and we know it's God's word because it says so in the Bible, and everything in the Bible is true...

... because....

 

[bripat9643]

I love the way you put things exactly the opposite of how they are.

Here are the facts: The constitution grants a few limited powers to the federal government. It poses no constraints on the states whatsoever except for a very few matters like imposing tariffs and making treaties with foreign governments. The 10th reserves all other powers to the states, whether stated explicitly or not. The federal government has no authority to make any laws that don't conform to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy clause says that the laws the federal government does make, so long as they conform to the Constitution, take precedence over state laws.

There is absolutely no federal law that states can't secede, so the supremacy clause simply doesn't apply to this situation.

Again, the federal government is a concurrent sovereign over the States. As the territory had two sovereigns, no territorial decisions can be made without the consent of both. The Federal government can't cede territory within a State without the State's authorization. Nor can the State cede territory within a State without the Federal government's authorization.

That's just more of your made up horseshit. There are no historical documents to support such a claim. The fact that right before the war several bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal shows that members of Congress believed it was legal.

And the federal government never offered its authorization. Thus, no territorial changes occurred. And the southern states remained under concurrent jurisdiction, sharing sovereignty with the federal government.

Again, the "everything that isn't expressly permitted is prohibited" theory of jurisprudence - a theory that every judge in the United States would laugh at.

Madison utterly obliterates the secession and nullification arguments, explicitly contradicting them. Madison also dismantles the conditional ratification argument, recognizing that the constitution must be ratified in toto and forever. Madison also recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government over territory within a State.

You're arguing that you know what the constitution means better than Madison himself did. And you're obviously wrong.

Sorry, but no he doesn't. He expressed an opinion. Madison may have been "the father of the Constitution," whatever that nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, but he didn't write the Constitution. Dozens and even hundreds of people had a hand in crafting the document over a period of months. They all have their own opinions about what the document means. Madison's opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of any of the other people who worked on it.

A state that seceded would presumably stop paying federal taxes. The power of the federal government to tax is constitutional. Therefore secession becomes illegal by the simple fact that secession includes violations of specific federal, constitutional laws.

A state that seceded would not be part of the United States and would no longer be subject to federal law.

You really are incredibly stupid on this point.

But the state cannot legally secede. That is the point. No one, including states, can arbitrarily, unilaterally declare themselves exempt from the law. That's absurd.

Sure they can. They simply have to secede. That's what secession is. There is no law against secession, so how can it be illegal? You keep ignoring that point. You simply insist that it's illegal with no factual or logical support of any kind.

 

[bripat9643]

It's in their ratification documents and they were admitted to the union, so they weren't old "no."

In toto and forever, bub.
Right from the words of Madison himself when asked if a State could secede:
==================
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe.

My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it
does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this

principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. It has been so adopted by the other

States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption

of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new

States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.


This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.txt

But if you think unilateral secession is allowed -

Go ahead. Try it. See what happens

... if you secede, you'd better succeed.

It's in their ratification documents, bub. They was voted on and approved. These states were then accepted into the union. All you have is the opinion of a bunch of bootlicking statist blowhards.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay -- and most at the ratifying Convention -- "statist blowhards."


What do you think will happen if you secede?

OOOps. Bripat go *boom*

Three men were "most of the ratifying convention?" As I recall, there were 13 states at the time. Each of them sent a delegate to the convention. Plus there were others there who weren't official delegates like Benjamin Franklin. Notice how many signatures there are on the document. There are a lot more than three.

The NY Ratifying Convention, idiot.

The one who vetoed the idea that a state could secede.

Elliot s Debates Volume 2 Teaching American History

It's in the document they voted on and approved, idiot. It doesn't matter what kind of hearsay evidence you have from some partisan lookers-on, the final document New York approved contains language reserving the right of the state to secede.

 

[bripat9643]

To repeat what has not been shown to be otherwise, no law exists against secession because it is implicitly contrary to the membership in the Perpetual Union.
It has nothing to do with Lincoln at all. Secession is rebellion and rebellion is not tolerated.

Like I said, it's much like the argument made that everything in the Bible is true because it's God's word,

and we know it's God's word because it says so in the Bible, and everything in the Bible is true...

... because....

You and there4eyeM are the ones who think God made secession illegal. There is no evidence of any kind that the Constitution "implicitly" outlaws secession. That belief is pure fantasy.

 

[GHook93]

The states need to re-claim their power to nullify. That was TAKEN and simply needs to be taken back.

A power they never had is hard to regain!

The states couldn't break away when the U.S. wasn't that strong, what makes you think it could be done now the the U.S. Is stronger than any other country in history?