Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bendog]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

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

Ignorant nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly states that Federal law, the rulings of Federal courts, the Constitution, and its case law are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, where Constitutional case law clearly prohibits one or more states from leaving the Union absent the consent of all the other states.

What you fail to understand is that the Union is an agreement between and among all citizens of the United States, not an agreement among the states (US Term Limits v. Thornton), where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government, as indeed 'secession' would manifest as such unwarranted and unauthorized interference by the states.

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Where does the Constitution say that "case law" replaced the Constitution again?

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

 

[Faun]

JOHN WILKES BOOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PENALTY FOR TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION WAS DEATH

The democrat booth was the traitor

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He wasn't a Democrat, ya fruit loop dingus.

Yes he was.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

John Wilkes Booth's last known party affiliation was with the Know Nothing party. There is no evidence he was ever a Democrat.

 

[kaz]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

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

Ignorant nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly states that Federal law, the rulings of Federal courts, the Constitution, and its case law are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, where Constitutional case law clearly prohibits one or more states from leaving the Union absent the consent of all the other states.

What you fail to understand is that the Union is an agreement between and among all citizens of the United States, not an agreement among the states (US Term Limits v. Thornton), where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government, as indeed 'secession' would manifest as such unwarranted and unauthorized interference by the states.

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Where does the Constitution say that "case law" replaced the Constitution again?

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

 

[bripat9643]

There is and was consent of the governed.

Of course there wasn't, turd. It seems bald-faced lying is the favorite argument of the Lincoln cult.

 

[OnePercenter]

There is and was consent of the governed.

Of course there wasn't, turd. It seems bald-faced lying is the favorite argument of the Lincoln cult.

Aren't you Canadian?

 

[bripat9643]

There is and was consent of the governed.

Of course there wasn't, turd. It seems bald-faced lying is the favorite argument of the Lincoln cult.

Aren't you Canadian?

Aren't you off your meds?

 

[bripat9643]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

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

Ignorant nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly states that Federal law, the rulings of Federal courts, the Constitution, and its case law are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, where Constitutional case law clearly prohibits one or more states from leaving the Union absent the consent of all the other states.

What you fail to understand is that the Union is an agreement between and among all citizens of the United States, not an agreement among the states (US Term Limits v. Thornton), where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government, as indeed 'secession' would manifest as such unwarranted and unauthorized interference by the states.

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Where does the Constitution say that "case law" replaced the Constitution again?

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

So only some people get to consent to be governed. The rest of us who come after them are stuck with whatever they consented to? Doesn't every generation have the right to consent to be governed? If you object, you have a long row to how to justify it.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

If it can't be withdrawn, then it's no longer consent. Does a woman lose her right to refuse sex if she agreed at first but then changes her mind? It's amazing to me the things the Lincoln cult says with respect to secession that they would object to in any other situation.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

What does this Lincoln propaganda have to do with the issue?

 

[OnePercenter]

There is and was consent of the governed.

Of course there wasn't, turd. It seems bald-faced lying is the favorite argument of the Lincoln cult.

Aren't you Canadian?

Aren't you off your meds?

So that would be YES. Whats wrong with the USMB? Canadians.

 

[Contumacious]

The Supremacy Clause really does end this debate.

A State lacks the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of any of its constitutionally designated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes that jurisdiction over the United States is such a power. Including every State.

d.

The "Supremacy Clause" according to Femi-Nazi "skylar" states:

WHEREAS The Federal Government

has a powerful domestic paramilitary force
is a continuing Criminal Enterprise
is populated by criminal bureaucrats
is taking advantage of the fact that after 90 years of government "education" Americans are dumb as sticks

then whatever the federal government does is lawful and valid.

 

[bripat9643]

There is and was consent of the governed.

Of course there wasn't, turd. It seems bald-faced lying is the favorite argument of the Lincoln cult.

Aren't you Canadian?

Aren't you off your meds?

So that would be YES. Whats wrong with the USMB? Canadians.

"Yes," you are off your meds.

 

[Unkotare]

It says all powers not ceded, but it doesn't say there was any power to secede that could have been ceded to the fed..

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

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

Ignorant nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly states that Federal law, the rulings of Federal courts, the Constitution, and its case law are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, where Constitutional case law clearly prohibits one or more states from leaving the Union absent the consent of all the other states.

What you fail to understand is that the Union is an agreement between and among all citizens of the United States, not an agreement among the states (US Term Limits v. Thornton), where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government, as indeed 'secession' would manifest as such unwarranted and unauthorized interference by the states.

The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Where does the Constitution say that "case law" replaced the Constitution again?

Your argument for the 10th amendment requires there first be a power to secede, because the 10th does not itself create any power. Thus, while you are undoubtedly more civil that the obscene child, you add nothing to his argument which is contradicted not just by supreme court case law, but perhaps more importantly by Madison's and other's writings of what they thought the states gave up when the ratified the constitution with the first ten amendments.

The 10th requires there be a power to secede? That makes no sense. The 10th says all powers not ceded to the Federal government remain with the States or the people, that says specifically there does not need to be a power to secede, there needs to be a Federal power stopping secession, and clearly there isn't one.

And as I asked before, when the Feds block secession, clearly there is then no consent of the governed, which is central to the whole concept of our system. Without consent of the governed, we are subjects and not citizens of the government. It's preposterous to say the Federal government has the power to force the people to remain under it's domain after they withdraw consent

The consent to be governed occurred when the states ratified, or agreed to be bound by ratification, because not all thirteen colonies had to ratify, rather only 9 had to ratify for the constitution and first ten amendments to become law.

The question is simply could consent be withdrawn. The obscene child's OP was demolished by others. Personally, I've never found a smoking gun either way, but logically I don't see how a right to secede could survive ratification. The colonies received various benefits from entering into the union in terms of defense, trade, coinage, respect by other states to its own laws, etc. In exchange for the benefits of the fed govt's "supremacy" in all matters expressly given to the fed govt, the states gave up some limits to their sovereignty. It was a contract. Parties do not have unilateral rights to rescind contracts.

You, or someone else, put up a quote from Jefferson about leaving the union. I don't think he argued there was a right to do so, but rather the other states should let another state go if it chose. That may very well have been an assumption. And it probably was assumed as to slavery. But, secession preceded the emancipation proclamation .. by over two years.

ps, actually I came over to post on the "evolution" of views in the North, and probably be Lincoln himself, as to the need to abolish the institution of slavery as the war progressed. After last week's discussions, I checked out the book The Sword of Lincoln, which is about the Army of the Potomac And it discusses this. As the AOP basically bled the Army of N. Virginia dry, by shedding it's own blood, and in greater quanties, opinions hardened. And then, finally at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863, the Union began extracting more blood than it shed. And Lincoln finally got his message across to his army that its job was to destroy Lee, and the confederacy in total.

So the government has my consent because my great, great, great, great, great grandfather said so. Dude, that's just stupid, was it supposed to be serious?

You are personally free to emigrate at any time. Take that low-life piece of shit bripunk with you. We have no use for trash like both.

 

[thanatos144]

JOHN WILKES BOOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PENALTY FOR TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION WAS DEATH

The democrat booth was the traitor

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He wasn't a Democrat, ya fruit loop dingus.

Yes he was.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

John Wilkes Booth's last known party affiliation was with the Know Nothing party. There is no evidence he was ever a Democrat.

Revisionist

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[there4eyeM]

Such a display of frustrated childishness! Little middle fingers must indicate other limitations, particularly, intellectual ones.
As for the topic, the entire Civil War episode is nothing but sad and tragic. Nobody won, not even the 'freed' slaves, really, as their situation barely evolved for many years in terms of 'quality of life'.
That Lincoln took the measures he did created unsettling precedents, it must be admitted. America was changed by the event of the secession movement, and not in the direction of its original intent.
Yet, some aspects were positive and did reinforce the nation. The mere fact that in the middle of a gigantic internal struggle there were regular presidential elections is a marvel, in retrospect. What other country would have dared such a thing? This showed a profound, abiding faith in democracy. It also established that, however unpleasant, the intervention of the whole to save the part should and would be done.
We must remember that.

 

[Skylar]

The Supremacy Clause really does end this debate.

A State lacks the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of any of its constitutionally designated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes that jurisdiction over the United States is such a power. Including every State.

d.

The "Supremacy Clause" according to Femi-Nazi "skylar" states:

WHEREAS The Federal Government

has a powerful domestic paramilitary force
is a continuing Criminal Enterprise
is populated by criminal bureaucrats
is taking advantage of the fact that after 90 years of government "education" Americans are dumb as sticks

then whatever the federal government does is lawful and valid.

The Supremacy clause establishes jurisdiction, that the Federal government is also a sovereign of the territory within a State. A point you don't dispute. And with that constitutionally delegated power for the Federal government is the folly of the secession argument. Well, one of them.

As a State does not have the authority to strip the Federal government of any power delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Secession would strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over the territory within a State. And is thus constitutionally invalid.

 

[Contumacious]

The Supremacy Clause really does end this debate.

A State lacks the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of any of its constitutionally designated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes that jurisdiction over the United States is such a power. Including every State.

d.

The "Supremacy Clause" according to Femi-Nazi "skylar" states:

WHEREAS The Federal Government

has a powerful domestic paramilitary force
is a continuing Criminal Enterprise
is populated by criminal bureaucrats
is taking advantage of the fact that after 90 years of government "education" Americans are dumb as sticks

then whatever the federal government does is lawful and valid.

The Supremacy clause establishes jurisdiction, that the Federal government is also a sovereign of the territory within a State. A point you don't dispute. And with that constitutionally delegated power for the Federal government is the folly of the secession argument. Well, one of them.

As a State does not have the authority to strip the Federal government of any power delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Secession would strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over the territory within a State. And is thus constitutionally invalid.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


James Madison


James Madison was a founding father, the father of the US Constitution, Fourth President.


Of course, from your standpoint he was a piece of shit who is not as impressive to you as your idol Karl Marx.


And so it ******* goes.


.


.

 

[there4eyeM]

There was no clear legal right to unilaterally separate from the Perpetual Union.

 

[Skylar]

The Supremacy Clause really does end this debate.

A State lacks the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of any of its constitutionally designated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes that jurisdiction over the United States is such a power. Including every State.

d.

The "Supremacy Clause" according to Femi-Nazi "skylar" states:

WHEREAS The Federal Government

has a powerful domestic paramilitary force
is a continuing Criminal Enterprise
is populated by criminal bureaucrats
is taking advantage of the fact that after 90 years of government "education" Americans are dumb as sticks

then whatever the federal government does is lawful and valid.

The Supremacy clause establishes jurisdiction, that the Federal government is also a sovereign of the territory within a State. A point you don't dispute. And with that constitutionally delegated power for the Federal government is the folly of the secession argument. Well, one of them.

As a State does not have the authority to strip the Federal government of any power delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Secession would strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over the territory within a State. And is thus constitutionally invalid.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


James Madison


James Madison was a founding father, the father of the US Constitution, Fourth President.


Of course, from your standpoint he was a piece of shit who is not as impressive to you as your idol Karl Marx.


And so it ******* goes.


.


.

Among the powers delegated to the Federal government is the application of federal law upon the States. Demonstrating unambiguously that the federal government shares concurrent jurisdiction with the State governments, acting as a sovereign along with the states over that territory.

And a state can't strip away federal powers delegated by the constitution. As secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Oh, and James Madison, the father of the constitution explicitly rejected secession. Insisting instead that the constitution must be ratified 'in toto and forever'. I'd be happy to post excerpts from elaborate descriptions given by Madison on why unilateral secession is invalid. Why its not a power states possess. And why it would require a process similar to an amendment with the agreement of far more than a majority of the States for it to occur.

Just so you can wipe your ass with your own source and demonstrate for us how intellectually void your perspective is. Where you will ignore your own sources if they don't ape what you choose to believe.

Shall I?

 

[Contumacious]

The Supremacy Clause really does end this debate.

A State lacks the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of any of its constitutionally designated powers. The Supremacy Clause establishes that jurisdiction over the United States is such a power. Including every State.

d.

The "Supremacy Clause" according to Femi-Nazi "skylar" states:

WHEREAS The Federal Government

has a powerful domestic paramilitary force
is a continuing Criminal Enterprise
is populated by criminal bureaucrats
is taking advantage of the fact that after 90 years of government "education" Americans are dumb as sticks

then whatever the federal government does is lawful and valid.

The Supremacy clause establishes jurisdiction, that the Federal government is also a sovereign of the territory within a State. A point you don't dispute. And with that constitutionally delegated power for the Federal government is the folly of the secession argument. Well, one of them.

As a State does not have the authority to strip the Federal government of any power delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Secession would strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over the territory within a State. And is thus constitutionally invalid.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


James Madison


James Madison was a founding father, the father of the US Constitution, Fourth President.


Of course, from your standpoint he was a piece of shit who is not as impressive to you as your idol Karl Marx.


And so it ******* goes.


.


.

Among the powers delegated to the Federal government is the application of federal law upon the States. Demonstrating unambiguously that the federal government shares concurrent jurisdiction with the State governments, acting as a sovereign along with the states over that territory.

And a state can't strip away federal powers delegated by the constitution. As secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Oh, and James Madison, the father of the constitution explicitly rejected secession. Insisting instead that the constitution must be ratified 'in toto and forever'. I'd be happy to post excerpts from elaborate descriptions given by Madison on why unilateral secession is invalid. Why its not a power states possess. And why it would require a process similar to an amendment with the agreement of far more than a majority of the States for it to occur.

Just so you can wipe your ass with your own source and demonstrate for us how intellectually void your perspective is. Where you will ignore your own sources if they don't ape what you choose to believe.

Shall I?

Ms Dingle Berry, Madam


Identify by article, section and clause that certain proviso which conferred upon Congress the authority to prevent secessions.


I, of course, wont hold my breath.

I strongly suggest that you limit your future posts to commenting about basket weaving.



.

 

[there4eyeM]

A basket case is what the arguments in favor of secession are.

 

[Skylar]

Ms Dingle Berry, Madam


Identify by article, section and clause that certain proviso which conferred upon Congress the authority to prevent secessions.

Show me the article, section and clause where a State can strip a constitutionally delegated power from the federal government? There is no such provision. And secession is dependent on it.

The 10th amendment does not grant a State the authority to violate the constitution. And a State stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation. No such power exists. And with it, the entire secession argument dies.

Oh, and what of James Madison? You cited him so you clearly recognize him as authoritative. You even called him the 'father of the constitution'. But now that you've learned that Madison explicitly contradicts you, you refuse to even discuss him. Why?

If Madison is an authoritative source, then why would you ignore Madison on the very issue you're arguing? Here's some of Madison's sentiment on the matter:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

James Madison.

And here is Madison again, systematically dismantling your entire argument:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten an abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

.....
It surely does not follow, from the fact of the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having as parties to the Constitutional compact no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest; and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.

The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, and now here less so than where it is now most contended for.

James Madison Letter to Alexander Rives

With Madison dismantling the very basis of secession: that a single state can speak for 'the people'.

"The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at large; does he infer that the people can in detached bodies contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the Constitution if they please, but while the Constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people: so far from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people."

But you have no interest in Madison or any other source that doesn't say exactly what you already believe. And that's why you fail.

I, of course, wont hold my breath.

I strongly suggest that you limit your future posts to commenting about basket weaving.

Says the guy that just ignored his own source. Where James Madison is the 'father of the constitution' if you think he supports you. And completely ignored if he contradicts you.

Sorry, Cont......but a State cannot strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Violating the constitution is not a power of the State, as demonstrated by the Supremacy Clause. And secession would strip the federal government of its constitutionally delegated power of jurisdiction over every State. With the State sharing the same jurisdiction

And even James Madison, the father of the constitution, contradicts you. Ignore as you will. Just don't expect us to.