Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

Dude you couldn't kick the ass of a Room temperature IQ 4th grader.
The OP stated some facts. You don't like them.
So you issue an idle threat.
What's that make you into?

It means I judged the situation correctly. If they want to start trouble be ready for an ass kicking.

No you like any other typical limp wrist liberal use a threat and call on a central government for oppression and abuse to save your ass.

I wouldn't have to lift a finger. Do whatever it is you want to do and I guarantee they will be waiting for you. They monitor message boards and probably already have your address anyway.

ROFL! Do you ever stop threatening people you disagree with?

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, I'm sure you wished the south successfully seceded so they could continue the enslavement of blacks. **** off.

You're just an asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

As Justice Scalia noted the decision was decided by the Civil War. Your point is moot.

In other words, might makes right. You, Lincoln and Hitler agree with him. That's hardly surprising.

So why do you have to secede? Just move to Idaho or North Dakota, take over the state government, rewrite the state constitution, make new laws and live the way you want.

How about you just get the hell out and go to an ALREADY socialist country? We LOVE OUR Republic. You don't? LEAVE.

Well I don't think you love your Republic if you want to divide it and I have the law on my side.

It is already divided, perhaps irrevocably.

Notice that none of the Lincoln cult members are actually addressing the arguments posted. They spew ad hominems are make other criticisms, but none have actually tried to refute the OP.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I wish you yellow dogs would stop bloviating about secession - and just ******* do it. Please, just ******* do it. Show the world you aren't the spineless bastards we think you are.

You miss the point. This isn't about the desire to secede, it's about whether citizens of a state should have the right to leave the union if they engage in the democratic process to do so.

Surely you believe citizens of a state should be allowed the democratic process ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

I just proved there is, dumbass.

Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.

Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.

So because the SCOTUS say's it would be unconstitutional, would you then be all for the U.S. military to be sent in to kill citizens of a state if they voted to have control of their own destiny by seceding ?

If you have no right under the Constitution to secede, you have in effect become an enemy of the state and have reduced your role in the state to one controlled by Jurisprudence and corrections.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Uh. No.

seriously, have you seen the kinds of clowns State governments produce? Mostly because no one is watching them.

 

[JoeB131]

Notice that none of the Lincoln cult members are actually addressing the arguments posted. They spew ad hominems are make other criticisms, but none have actually tried to refute the OP.

"Lincoln Cult members"? Do you shit yourself every time you see a Five dollar bill?

Okay, guy, here's the thing. The South was in the wrong, and the rest of the country is done being nice to you about it.

 

[IcebergSlim]

In other words, might makes right. You, Lincoln and Hitler agree with him. That's hardly surprising.

So why do you have to secede? Just move to Idaho or North Dakota, take over the state government, rewrite the state constitution, make new laws and live the way you want.

How about you just get the hell out and go to an ALREADY socialist country? We LOVE OUR Republic. You don't? LEAVE.

Well I don't think you love your Republic if you want to divide it and I have the law on my side.

It is already divided, perhaps irrevocably.

Notice that none of the Lincoln cult members are actually addressing the arguments posted. They spew ad hominems are make other criticisms, but none have actually tried to refute the OP.

Except to cite the Supreme Court on the matter......

 

[gipper]

If secession was ALWAYS illegal, as many Lincoln Cultists proclaim, why can't they provide proof by referencing statements from Founding Fathers? Why was secession not outlawed in the Constitution at the founding?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper, if the Founding Fathers believed secession to be legal, they would have provided for it. They did not because they did not.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

No answer ehh ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey libs, is Obama a traitor ?

This Obama Administration Proposal Would Effectively Authorize Secession For Some Americans

In its latest assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Obama administration is proposing to recognize so-called “Native” Hawaiians as an Indian tribe entitled to separate and become an independent sovereign and to “reestablish” a “government-to-government relationship between the United State and the Native Hawaiian community.”

Such an unconstitutional action would amount to authorizing secession for certain residents of Hawaii.



It would also implicitly authorize government-sanctioned, discriminatory conduct against any other residents who don’t meet the explicit ancestry and blood-quantum requirements to be considered a “Native.” This would balkanize Hawaii, dividing the islands into separate racial and ethnic enclaves, and undo “the political bargain through which Hawaii secured its admission into the Union.” …

From a constitutional standpoint, the administration has no legal authority to implement its proposal. Only Congress, not the president, has the authority to recognize Indian tribes under Article I, Section 8. Congress has specifically refused to provide that authority. For more than a decade, former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, tried unsuccessfully to convince Congress to pass the Native Hawaiian Recognition Act, which would have provided such recognition. …

Obama Proposal Would Authorize Secession For Some Americans The Federalist Papers

No answer ehh ?

You seem anxious. I wonder wy?

We have a history of recognizing native nations, secondary in relationship to the federal government. Any person who suggests such is secession clearly reveals no understanding of the situation. It is not much different than the organization of the western states entering the Union with the state and government getting recognized shares of land, while providing for land claims for settlers.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

it was always the original intent of the Framing Generation that Federal law be supreme, that the rulings of Federal courts be supreme, and that the Constitution and its case law be the supreme law of the land, immune from attack by the states.

Only within the parameters of enumerated powers. The federal government had no rights under the Constitution to grant itself additional power short of an amendment to the Constitution.

The national government has more powers than the enumerated powers in Section 8. Of course the necessary and proper clause in eight has allowed the national government the power to do many things and keep pace with today's world.

Nonsense. The necessary and proper, general welfare and commerce clauses have all been perverted in ways that permit the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants despite constitutional limitations.

This was NEVER the intention.

 

[gipper]

Gipper, if the Founding Fathers believed secession to be legal, they would have provided for it. They did not because they did not.

Please post a reference to just one founding father that confirms your opinion.

 

[gipper]

The Great Walter Williams from his most recent column:

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper, if the Founding Fathers believed secession to be legal, they would have provided for it. They did not because they did not.

Please post a reference to just one founding father that confirms your opinion.

That is not the standard of proof, gipper, except in the mind of the needy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln certainly did not support the War with Mexico.

Go look up his Spot Resolution.

 

[gipper]

Lincoln certainly did not support the War with Mexico.

Go look up his Spot Resolution.

You are a Dishonest Abe lover, why do you disagree with his opinion of secession?

Just one founding father's statement on the illegality of secession Jakey...just one. Please....pretty please with sugar on top....