Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not quite sure what you mean. State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers. that they had BEFORE the constitution (and articles of confederation). But there was no right to secede, if one exists, in existence before they ratified the Constitution and Articles ... because there was nothing to secede from.

So, I think we're back to the question of whether the southern states ratified the constitution on a premised belief that they "deratify." The Articles of Confederation did not provide that right for and individual, and to end the Articles or amend them, 9 of the 13 had to agree.

I don't think it can be dumbed down any further. The purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments was to restrict the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and to establish the states with powers that cannot be defined by the federal government. This is what made Lincoln's war illegal, because there was no power delegated to empower the federal government to dragoon seceding states. The power to secede need not to have been defined because the powers of the federal government are defined, not the powers of the states.

 

[paperview]

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not quite sure what you mean. State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers. that they had BEFORE the constitution (and articles of confederation). But there was no right to secede, if one exists, in existence before they ratified the Constitution and Articles ... because there was nothing to secede from.

So, I think we're back to the question of whether the southern states ratified the constitution on a premised belief that they "deratify." The Articles of Confederation did not provide that right for and individual, and to end the Articles or amend them, 9 of the 13 had to agree.

How is that confusing to you? You even said it: "State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers."

Those are enumerated powers of the Federal government. The right to block a State seceding was never granted to the Federal government, so it's not a power. The Constitution defines Federal powers, it does not define State powers.

The Constitution isn't an agreement between the States and the Federal government. It's a document from the States and their people telling the Federal government, you can do these things and ONLY (10th amendment) these things. It does not say you can do these things, if it's not there we'll go to an arbitrator. It says if it's not there it's "prohibited" to the Federal government.

The Constitution gives the States the clear upper hand, they define what the Federal government can do, the Federal government has no say in that.

If you and your friends start a company, you write down bylaws that say what the company can do and how it operates. The company can't do anything other than what you authorize it to do

You said: "Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers." You are most assuredly wrong on this.

I"t's a document from the States and their people telling the Federal government, you can do these things and ONLY (10th amendment) these things. It does not say you can do these things, if it's not there we'll go to an arbitrator."


Arbitrator: US Supreme Court. As delegated by the Constitution.
See:
Article III, Sections. 1 & 2

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States

& Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"It says if it's not there it's "prohibited" to the Federal government."

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.

 

[bendog]

Why? I love my country and am loyal to the United States of America. You, on the other hand, play the apologist for traitorous scum even after all this time, and reject loyalty and citizenship to my country. There's the door, jackass...

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe. In ratifying first the Articles of Confederation and then the Const with the first 10 amendments, the states did give up powers they previously possessed, like coinage of money, treaties, the power to not recognize laws or contracts from sister states ..... They had those powers as sovereign states. They had no power to secede because there was nothing to secede from. That's why the 10th amendment can't be the source of a right to secede, because there was no power in existence that remained with the states.

But consider the quote for Hamilton that I think you posted.

"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?

"Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.

"Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."[8]
Legality of Secession

The quote is used to support the concept that the federal govt could not compel a state to stay in the union. But, Hamilton literally is arguing other states would never allow themselves to be used to compel another state to do something specifically not ratified that is not in the state's interest. However, LINCOLN NEVER COMPELLED A STATE TO NOT HAVE SLAVES until after secession was already a reality and all attempts to negotiate a peace, with the states remaining in the union WITh the slaves, failed.

So, I could maybe agree that people who voted on ratification, and perhaps even today, should believe citizens have a right to vote to deratify, and the states retained that power, but ONLY if the motivation to leave is because the federal govt is doing something expressly forbidden and outside it's power.
So, perhaps there was a "retained" power to either ignore the fed govt, or leave the union, if the federal govt took some unconstitutional step, or claimed a power it did not have.

 

[kaz]

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not quite sure what you mean. State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers. that they had BEFORE the constitution (and articles of confederation). But there was no right to secede, if one exists, in existence before they ratified the Constitution and Articles ... because there was nothing to secede from.

So, I think we're back to the question of whether the southern states ratified the constitution on a premised belief that they "deratify." The Articles of Confederation did not provide that right for and individual, and to end the Articles or amend them, 9 of the 13 had to agree.

How is that confusing to you? You even said it: "State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers."

Those are enumerated powers of the Federal government. The right to block a State seceding was never granted to the Federal government, so it's not a power. The Constitution defines Federal powers, it does not define State powers.

The Constitution isn't an agreement between the States and the Federal government. It's a document from the States and their people telling the Federal government, you can do these things and ONLY (10th amendment) these things. It does not say you can do these things, if it's not there we'll go to an arbitrator. It says if it's not there it's "prohibited" to the Federal government.

The Constitution gives the States the clear upper hand, they define what the Federal government can do, the Federal government has no say in that.

If you and your friends start a company, you write down bylaws that say what the company can do and how it operates. The company can't do anything other than what you authorize it to do

You said: "Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers." You are most assuredly wrong on this.

I"t's a document from the States and their people telling the Federal government, you can do these things and ONLY (10th amendment) these things. It does not say you can do these things, if it's not there we'll go to an arbitrator."


Arbitrator: US Supreme Court. As delegated by the Constitution.
See:
Article III, Sections. 1 & 2

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States

& Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"It says if it's not there it's "prohibited" to the Federal government."

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.

Actually, neither of those sections give the Supreme Court judicial review. I do like your argument though that if the Federal government and the States disagree then the Federal government gets to decide. Talk about being a subject.

And you need to re-read about the arbiter, I actually was making a more specific point that you whiffed on. Judicial review or not, the Federal government does not have the legitimate power to give itself new powers

 

[kaz]

I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?

You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens

You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.

I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point

The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.

You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment

Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?

I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.

Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things

I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe. In ratifying first the Articles of Confederation and then the Const with the first 10 amendments, the states did give up powers they previously possessed, like coinage of money, treaties, the power to not recognize laws or contracts from sister states ..... They had those powers as sovereign states. They had no power to secede because there was nothing to secede from. That's why the 10th amendment can't be the source of a right to secede, because there was no power in existence that remained with the states.

But consider the quote for Hamilton that I think you posted.

"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?

"Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.

"Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."[8]
Legality of Secession

The quote is used to support the concept that the federal govt could not compel a state to stay in the union. But, Hamilton literally is arguing other states would never allow themselves to be used to compel another state to do something specifically not ratified that is not in the state's interest. However, LINCOLN NEVER COMPELLED A STATE TO NOT HAVE SLAVES until after secession was already a reality and all attempts to negotiate a peace, with the states remaining in the union WITh the slaves, failed.

So, I could maybe agree that people who voted on ratification, and perhaps even today, should believe citizens have a right to vote to deratify, and the states retained that power, but ONLY if the motivation to leave is because the federal govt is doing something expressly forbidden and outside it's power.
So, perhaps there was a "retained" power to either ignore the fed govt, or leave the union, if the federal govt took some unconstitutional step, or claimed a power it did not have.

The reason a State would decide to leave the union is up to that State. That the Federal government is doing something expressly forbidden and outside it's power would be a good reason, but I don't know where you get that can be the only reason. Anyway, any State now has that reason in spades, only a fraction of what the Federal government does now is actually a legitimate Federal power

 

[there4eyeM]

If a rule says, "Safety helmets must be worn at all times in this area", no one would think it necessary to post another sign that said, "Baseball caps are prohibited in this area."
When the states joined the Perpetual Union, everyone who understood English implicitly understood that unilateral attempts to leave were verboten.
There didn't have to be a mention of the fact, it was already known. With the attempt at perfection the Constitution represented was continued the parts that were not mentioned because no reason was seen to 'perfect' them further.
That some chose to ignore this or pretend it was no longer the case we see in retrospect. That some choose to ignore it today is perplexing.

 

[bendog]

I have not seen any support for a notion that a state could secede for "any' reason. You can read the Hamilton quote to mean either a state could secede if the federal took an unconstitutional power, OR the other states would never use force to coerce a state NOT to take that power.

I think your notion that every state can do that now because the fed govt has taken unconstitutional powers is childish, but it brings up a twist about the civil war. The Supreme Court decides what the fed govt has power to do, or not. But, in 1861, Justice Taney would probably have ruled for the states, but then again he was a Jacksonian democrat, and Jackson put down SC in the nullification crisis, so perhaps Taney's views were more limited to whether the fed govt could restrict new states from not being slave states. That is, if you owned a slave legally, where you took him or her, or what you did to him or her, were strictly your own biz. At any rate, Lincoln avoided the supreme court.

Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede.

 

[Contumacious]

I have not seen any support for a notion that a state could secede for "any' reason. You can read the Hamilton quote to mean either a state could secede if the federal took an unconstitutional power, OR the other states would never use force to coerce a state NOT to take that power.

I think your notion that every state can do that now because the fed govt has taken unconstitutional powers is childish, but it brings up a twist about the civil war. The Supreme Court decides what the fed govt has power to do, or not. But, in 1861, Justice Taney would probably have ruled for the states, but then again he was a Jacksonian democrat, and Jackson put down SC in the nullification crisis, so perhaps Taney's views were more limited to whether the fed govt could restrict new states from not being slave states. That is, if you owned a slave legally, where you took him or her, or what you did to him or her, were strictly your own biz. At any rate, Lincoln avoided the supreme court.

Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede.

THE MISERABLE GOVERNMENT SUPREMACIST SCUMBAG STATES

"Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede."

THAT IS TRUE ONLY IN HIS ENSLAVED MENTALITY.


"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

Alexander Hamilton


TELL ME STUPID **** , DO THE WORDS" NOTHING" AND "EVERYTHING" HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING NOWADAYS?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[paperview]

Why does this idiot keep screaming?

 

[paperview]

I have not seen any support for a notion that a state could secede for "any' reason. You can read the Hamilton quote to mean either a state could secede if the federal took an unconstitutional power, OR the other states would never use force to coerce a state NOT to take that power.

I think your notion that every state can do that now because the fed govt has taken unconstitutional powers is childish, but it brings up a twist about the civil war. The Supreme Court decides what the fed govt has power to do, or not. But, in 1861, Justice Taney would probably have ruled for the states, but then again he was a Jacksonian democrat, and Jackson put down SC in the nullification crisis, so perhaps Taney's views were more limited to whether the fed govt could restrict new states from not being slave states. That is, if you owned a slave legally, where you took him or her, or what you did to him or her, were strictly your own biz. At any rate, Lincoln avoided the supreme court.

Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede.

Well said.

Everytime I read one of Kaz posts, I think she's childish.

She really doesn't have a good grasp on reality.

Question for all those who loves you the idea of secession and state over and over: where is it in the Constitution....

Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Yanno?

 

[Contumacious]

I have not seen any support for a notion that a state could secede for "any' reason. You can read the Hamilton quote to mean either a state could secede if the federal took an unconstitutional power, OR the other states would never use force to coerce a state NOT to take that power.

I think your notion that every state can do that now because the fed govt has taken unconstitutional powers is childish, but it brings up a twist about the civil war. The Supreme Court decides what the fed govt has power to do, or not. But, in 1861, Justice Taney would probably have ruled for the states, but then again he was a Jacksonian democrat, and Jackson put down SC in the nullification crisis, so perhaps Taney's views were more limited to whether the fed govt could restrict new states from not being slave states. That is, if you owned a slave legally, where you took him or her, or what you did to him or her, were strictly your own biz. At any rate, Lincoln avoided the supreme court.

Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede.

Well said.

Everytime I read one of Kaz posts, I think she's childish.

She really doesn't have a good grasp on reality.

Question for all those who loves you the idea of secession and state over and over: where is it in the Constitution....

Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Yanno?

Why does this idiot keep screaming?

"FOR WHOM THE BELLS TOLL? IT TOLLS FOR THEE."

.

LISTEN STUPID SCUMBAG, WERE WE SUPPOSED TO FIND A PEACEFUL SOLUTION WITH THE UK?

WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO SECEDE? WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DECLARE OUR INDEPENDENCE?


STUPID ****.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Why does this idiot keep screaming?

He/she screams at you because you're a moron who behaves as if your idiocies haven't already been refuted.

 

[paperview]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

 

[bripat9643]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

 

[Contumacious]

Perpetual Union; look it up.

RETARDED SON OF *****, LOOK IT UP.


.

 

[bendog]

I have not seen any support for a notion that a state could secede for "any' reason. You can read the Hamilton quote to mean either a state could secede if the federal took an unconstitutional power, OR the other states would never use force to coerce a state NOT to take that power.

I think your notion that every state can do that now because the fed govt has taken unconstitutional powers is childish, but it brings up a twist about the civil war. The Supreme Court decides what the fed govt has power to do, or not. But, in 1861, Justice Taney would probably have ruled for the states, but then again he was a Jacksonian democrat, and Jackson put down SC in the nullification crisis, so perhaps Taney's views were more limited to whether the fed govt could restrict new states from not being slave states. That is, if you owned a slave legally, where you took him or her, or what you did to him or her, were strictly your own biz. At any rate, Lincoln avoided the supreme court.

Today, however, its settled that there's no right, or state power, to secede.

Well said.

Everytime I read one of Kaz posts, I think she's childish.

She really doesn't have a good grasp on reality.

Question for all those who loves you the idea of secession and state over and over: where is it in the Constitution....

Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Yanno?

I should not have used childish, and I apologize to Kaz.

But, the scotus does determine what power the fed govt has. And, I thought it was interesting that Roberts found Obamacare const as a tax, but not under the commerce clause. And the commerce clause trumped the right to contract in civil rights, which, imo, was wrong.

And, I agree with her that the power of the fed govt increased due to the civil war, and again in 1932-45, and again with the WoT. But, that does not lead to a power to secede.

 

[paperview]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

You've been beaten and bloodied here by myself, and posters better than myself have cut off your legs, arms, red is spurting out of your torso -- and right now all you look like is this guy:



But I'll give ole stumpy another shot at showing his gums...

Q: Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

 

[Contumacious]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

You've been beaten and bloodied here by myself, and posters better than myself have cut off your legs, arms, red is spurting out of your torso -- and right now all you look like is this guy:



But I'll give ole stumpy another shot at showing his gums...

Q: Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

I UNDERSTAND THAT GOVERNMENT "EDUCATION" IS GROSSLY INEFFICIENT.


I GUESS THAT"S THE REASON YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS TO
SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATE ------
SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATE -------------
SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATE ---
THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT .


.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Middle finger toddler is defended the screaming, blabbering 7-point-font fool who couldn't refute his way out of a paper bag -- much like the snot-nosed middle finger toddler.

How...adorable.

Says the guy who hasn't managed to refute a single point in the OP.

You've been beaten and bloodied here by myself, and posters better than myself have cut off your legs, arms, red is spurting out of your torso -- and right now all you look like is this guy:



But I'll give ole stumpy another shot at showing his gums...

Q: Did the Confederate Constitution allow for secession?

I mean, they were big on the idea, right?

Your delusions are charming if not enlightening. You haven't laid a glove on me. Repeating the same exploded arguments over and over and over isn't how you win a debate.

It doesn't make any difference what the Confederate constitution allowed, but like the U.S. Constitution it doesn't mention secession.