Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[thanatos144]

[emoji38]

Yeah.

One of the ones you hate so much.

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.

By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" <--- SUPREME COURT

Cue birdpat spitting: Doesn't Count! "Lincoln's handpicked cronies."

And the little snot-nosed, middle-finger wagging toddler will pretend *he* is the last word.



lolol

Yep. That's Salmon P. Chase paraphrasing his benefactor Lincoln. Chase was put on the court by Lincoln specifically for the purpose of justifying all the crimes he committed to prosecute the Civil War.

One might as well ask Joseph Goebbels what he thought of the invasion of Poland.

Discounting a duly appointed justice of the supreme court doesn't make your case. It makes you crazy.

Supreme Court justices are all hand picked political hacks. They are easily "discounted." One hand picked by Lincoln to defined his war crimes is even more easily "discounted."

You belief that Supreme Court justices are infallible makes you an idiot.

That's funny because those political hacks of Lincoln ' s are the ones that stopped him from suspending heabeus corpus.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The problem with your claim is that Lincoln didn't stop, and the ones who tried weren't picked by Lincoln.

They all denied him

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

No reputable substantiation for the opinion that Perpetual Union ended.

Sure there is, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Also, the Articles of Confederation were only ratified by 13 States. You do need to prove that the Articles of Confederation are still in force as well as that they apply to the other 37 States who never ratified them. Or if you want to use Obama math, the 44 States who never ratified them

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

It's all they have

I know. All they've done since the beginning of this thread is repeat the same half dozen talking points over and over again. They haven't even tried to address the arguments in the OP. Then they tell themselves they've won the debate.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep. That's Salmon P. Chase paraphrasing his benefactor Lincoln. Chase was put on the court by Lincoln specifically for the purpose of justifying all the crimes he committed to prosecute the Civil War.

One might as well ask Joseph Goebbels what he thought of the invasion of Poland.

Discounting a duly appointed justice of the supreme court doesn't make your case. It makes you crazy.

Supreme Court justices are all hand picked political hacks. They are easily "discounted." One hand picked by Lincoln to defined his war crimes is even more easily "discounted."

You belief that Supreme Court justices are infallible makes you an idiot.

That's funny because those political hacks of Lincoln ' s are the ones that stopped him from suspending heabeus corpus.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

The problem with your claim is that Lincoln didn't stop, and the ones who tried weren't picked by Lincoln.

They all denied him

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Actually only one denied him, and Lincoln tried to put him in prison.

That's your great hero and defender of the Constitution.

 

[Debra K]

Bripat9643. What is your point? Even if you convinced everyone that states have the right to secede from the Union, what then?

 

[kaz]

Bripat9643. What is your point? Even if you convinced everyone that states have the right to secede from the Union, what then?

Um...in what way is that different than every other discussion we have on the board?

 

[Skylar]

No reputable substantiation for the opinion that Perpetual Union ended.

Sure there is, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Also, the Articles of Confederation were only ratified by 13 States. You do need to prove that the Articles of Confederation are still in force as well as that they apply to the other 37 States who never ratified them. Or if you want to use Obama math, the 44 States who never ratified them

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

 

[Skylar]

No reputable substantiation for the opinion that Perpetual Union ended.

Sure there is, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Also, the Articles of Confederation were only ratified by 13 States. You do need to prove that the Articles of Confederation are still in force as well as that they apply to the other 37 States who never ratified them. Or if you want to use Obama math, the 44 States who never ratified them

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

It's all they have

And you can't offer a rational retort either. You have none. The State has no authority to unilaterally strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. You can't get around that.

All you can do is repeat helpless variants of 'uh-uh'. Which is meaningless.

 

[bripat9643]

No reputable substantiation for the opinion that Perpetual Union ended.

Sure there is, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Also, the Articles of Confederation were only ratified by 13 States. You do need to prove that the Articles of Confederation are still in force as well as that they apply to the other 37 States who never ratified them. Or if you want to use Obama math, the 44 States who never ratified them

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so. Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union. You have yet to post any text in the Constitution nor any law that says states must remain in the union.

I've dealt with this over and over again. You regurgitate it ad nauseum because you have no facts or arguments to support your case.

Here's a clue for you: The rule in your gym that says no snapping towels in the locker room is binding over you only so long as you're a member of the gym. It doesn't give the gym the right to repossess your car.

 

[paperview]

^ Stupidest analogy ever.

No, middle finger child, you have nothing.

You have been beaten, bruised, chopped off at the legs and arms, spurting blood, and still think you are...a con-tenda!

Only in your little-boy mind, bridee, only in your mind.

 

[paperview]

 

[Skylar]

No reputable substantiation for the opinion that Perpetual Union ended.

Sure there is, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Also, the Articles of Confederation were only ratified by 13 States. You do need to prove that the Articles of Confederation are still in force as well as that they apply to the other 37 States who never ratified them. Or if you want to use Obama math, the 44 States who never ratified them

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

 

[bripat9643]

The Confederacy never declared war on the federal government, moron, and the Yankees who invaded got everything they deserved. The Confederates were enemies of the United states only because Lincoln declared them to be enemies.

Your so-called "facts" are 99% horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure there is, the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Also, the Articles of Confederation were only ratified by 13 States. You do need to prove that the Articles of Confederation are still in force as well as that they apply to the other 37 States who never ratified them. Or if you want to use Obama math, the 44 States who never ratified them

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says. Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it. All you've done is repeat for the 10,001th time the same nonsense you've been repeating since the beginning of this thread. You haven't added a single fact or syllogism to the original talking point.

 

[bripat9643]

^ Stupidest analogy ever.

No, middle finger child, you have nothing.

You have been beaten, bruised, chopped off at the legs and arms, spurting blood, and still think you are...a con-tenda!

Only in your little-boy mind, bridee, only in your mind.

You delusions are charming, if not enlightening. You and your fellow cultists have been sliced, diced and pureed. You haven't refuted a single point in the OP.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution clearly grants the Federal government jurisdiction over territory in the States via the Supremecy Clause. And the States lack the authority to strip the Federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Even Madison recognized 'concurrent governments' over the territory of the States.

Since secession would rob the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers, secession is constitutionally invalid.

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

 

[bripat9643]

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

This will be the 10,002th time we've heard this lame-assed talking point.

 

[Skylar]

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

This will be the 10,002th time we've heard this lame-assed talking point.

And predictably, you retreat back into another helpless 'uh-uh'.

You have no rational retort, as there is none. The Supremecy Clause establishes federal jurisdiction over the States as a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And that ends your argument. As a State would have to violate the constitution to unilaterally secede, by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

You can't get around that. And that's why you lost.

 

[dcraelin]

Repeating your swill 10,000 times won't make it true.

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

 

[Socialist]

Bripat, this thread is an embarrassment for you, I'd try to get it closed.

 

[Skylar]

Given that you have yet to refute the claim, it remains uncontested. Your reply so far is 'uh-uh'. Which isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

You have no rational retort beyond naked denial. The founders themselves recognized concurrent jurisdiction. With concurrent jurisdiction noted repeatedly in the Federalist Papers. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously extends federal jurisdiction to all of the United States. Which includes the States and territories.

Jurisdiction over the territory within a State is a recognized power granted the federal government by the Constitution. A State doesn't have the authority to unilaterally strip the Federal government of power that has been constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegagted power. Thus, secession is unconstitutional, as it exceeds the authority of the State.

As the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is repeat 'uh-uh'. Which is why you lost.

I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.

Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.

You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.

The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.

Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.

Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.

You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.

There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.

Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.

Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States

And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.

This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.

And you don't even deny it.

With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.

Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.

You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.

You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.

You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.

Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.

I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.

I'm not.

Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying '**** all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.

What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.