Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[NYcarbineer]

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

The usual nonsense from the usual nonsense hawkers (did somebody mention "pushing an agenda"?).

If Congress passed a law saying we would now have three Presidents and two Vice Presidents, and the Prez signed it, that law would be immediately unconstitutional. We wouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us so.

But our brethren of the southpaw persuasion don't want us deciding for ourselves that something is unconstitutional, because there is too much chance we'll realize that most of their entire agenda is unconstitutional. So they try to get us to accept that we are stupid and incapable of making decisions, and make us wait until some "higher authority" (put in place by them, of course) tells us a filtered version of what it says, and accept that instead.

No that law would not immediately be unconstitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

The usual nonsense from the usual nonsense hawkers (did somebody mention "pushing an agenda"?).

If Congress passed a law saying we would now have three Presidents and two Vice Presidents, and the Prez signed it, that law would be immediately unconstitutional. We wouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us so.

But our brethren of the southpaw persuasion don't want us deciding for ourselves that something is unconstitutional, because there is too much chance we'll realize that most of their entire agenda is unconstitutional. So they try to get us to accept that we are stupid and incapable of making decisions, and make us wait until some "higher authority" (put in place by them, of course) tells us a filtered version of what it says, and accept that instead.

No that law would not immediately be unconstitutional.

Not according to the supremacy clause, remember that little thing, anything in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

The usual nonsense from the usual nonsense hawkers (did somebody mention "pushing an agenda"?).

If Congress passed a law saying we would now have three Presidents and two Vice Presidents, and the Prez signed it, that law would be immediately unconstitutional. We wouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us so.

But our brethren of the southpaw persuasion don't want us deciding for ourselves that something is unconstitutional, because there is too much chance we'll realize that most of their entire agenda is unconstitutional. So they try to get us to accept that we are stupid and incapable of making decisions, and make us wait until some "higher authority" (put in place by them, of course) tells us a filtered version of what it says, and accept that instead.

No that law would not immediately be unconstitutional.

Not according to the supremacy clause, remember that little thing, anything in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding?

Every federal law passed is legitimately the law of the land unless it is successfully challenged in court, or repealed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

Interesting read. At least the first seven pages. A LOT of discussion from the late 1700's and the early 1800's on how the states are the foundation and how the federal government is to support them.

And then the Republicans prosecuted a bloody civil war to change all that and ensure that the will of the states was wholly subject to the will of Washington D.C..

And now, The Texas Plan. The irony of 21st Century politics in America continues......

`​

 

[OKTexas]

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

The usual nonsense from the usual nonsense hawkers (did somebody mention "pushing an agenda"?).

If Congress passed a law saying we would now have three Presidents and two Vice Presidents, and the Prez signed it, that law would be immediately unconstitutional. We wouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us so.

But our brethren of the southpaw persuasion don't want us deciding for ourselves that something is unconstitutional, because there is too much chance we'll realize that most of their entire agenda is unconstitutional. So they try to get us to accept that we are stupid and incapable of making decisions, and make us wait until some "higher authority" (put in place by them, of course) tells us a filtered version of what it says, and accept that instead.

No that law would not immediately be unconstitutional.

Not according to the supremacy clause, remember that little thing, anything in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding?

Every federal law passed is legitimately the law of the land unless it is successfully challenged in court, or repealed.

So you do want it both ways. Good to know. Because the supremacy clause says federal laws are good to go in spite of the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

Interesting read. At least the first seven pages. A LOT of discussion from the late 1700's and the early 1800's on how the states are the foundation and how the federal government is to support them.

And then the Republicans prosecuted a bloody civil war to change all that and ensure that the will of the states was wholly subject to the will of Washington D.C..

And now, The Texas Plan. The irony of 21st Century politics in America continues......

`​

Like I said, it's lengthy, but to document it as well as he did that is necessary. It's as well written as any court brief, but in plain language. But would you expect any less form a former AG?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Are you freaking serious? Amendment X was the EXCUSE of the secessionists to rebel; States Rights was the bogus excuse to color the claim. Those States joining the US voluntarily ceded a portion of the sovereignty to join the union and accepted the Constitution as written.

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

And EXACTLY where can that be ascertained in either the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision? You're forgetting about the chicken and egg conundrum you've created with your silly argument! You've forgotten the timing of certain occurrences and SCOTUS decisions that put the lie to your horseshit, Tex!

Oh right, a federal entity deciding, no conflict of interest there. LMAO

Great dodge to avoid responding to the direct question along with the conundrum of your creation and the timing issue. You're a brave soul, Tex!

That was no dodge, the supreme court ruled after the civil war that the States had no right to succeed, do you find that surprising, I don't. I will note however that the supreme court never spoke on the subject prior to the war. In fact Lincoln made a brief attempt to negotiate the souths return to the union, even said he would allow them to keep their slaves. The fact is the feds are a creation of the States and if they so chose they can abolish the federal government at will.

You're STILL dodging fool! You claimed, "... no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union." My response to you was to show where in the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision that was true. Your only response to that was a vague, non specific, "... the supreme court ruled after the civil war that the States had no right to succeed... ." What case was that lad? You couldn't find the case to cite it you know-nothing? Or did you find it and come across something that blows you BS out of the bloody water? Something like the following;

From the Syllabus in Texas v. White (1869), opinion Chief Justice Chase:
"4. 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."

5. But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States." [Emphasis Added]

The above quote from Texas v. White above clearly buries your claim 6' under that the States have the right to secede if they wish! It was Unconstitutional before the Civil War and it was unconstitutional after the Civil War. Again Bubba the tail doesn't wag the dog.

The Supremes had no reason to address secession before it started in 1861, fool, because no such issue had ever occurred in our short history up to that point. As far as the States abolishing the National government at their will, CITE THE FUCKING AUTHORITY,TEX! You can't and won't cite any authority for that vacuous claim, IDIOT, because there is none! Tex, your gun has had a vasectomy and is shootin' blanks! You are looking like an impotent jackass, so you should really quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[Debra K]

If we accept that premise as true, then what happened? Wasn't there a subsequent civil war? How much blood was spilled? At great human cost, didn't the civil war give rise to the post-civil war amendments? Those amendments provide the federal government with authority to "manage" states. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents States from depriving persons of their lives, liberty, or property without due process of law and depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

The civil war occurred because a single man decided that the primary reason for our founding, that free men should be able to govern themselves, was no longer a valid concept. And through the force of arms, imposed his will, while ignoring the bedrock principle.

You must be one of those who was taught that the War was started by the North. "The Lost Cause" propaganda machine was well entrenched by the 1880s.

Guess you haven't figured out that sending troops to a neighboring country is an act of war.

The southern states were not a "neighboring country". The people of the southern states were engaged in insurrection. They fired upon a union military installation (Fort Sumter). The federal government has power under the Constitution to suppress insurrections.

See post 216.

Sophistry. See post 211.

 

[Debra K]

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

They had no authority once that territory was peacefully withdrawn from their jurisdiction. Just like the former soviet union had no authority over the countries that withdrew from their union.

Your attempt to deceive is noted. Your argument is still Sophistry.

 

[Debra K]

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

They had no authority once that territory was peacefully withdrawn from their jurisdiction. Just like the former soviet union had no authority over the countries that withdrew from their union.

And when you steal something, is that your defense? It wasn't theft, your honor, I peacefully withdrew the property from someone else's possession and now it belongs to me. Sell your argument to one of those "poorly educated" people whom Trump says he loves.

Comparison to the dissolution of the USSR is a false analogy.

Dissolution of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

Perhaps... but I still think, rather than throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, it would be better to focus on one single item... get it through this process and show that the Article V deal can work... THEN go for the other items.

I am a big fan of Article V... I think it is probably the only way we get our country back at this point. I would just rather see a "test case" done first to show people it's a real thing that we CAN do first... then once it is done, people are more receptive and willing to support other items.

So you would want the staes to go through the huge costs and logistics to do a convention that seats delegates from all 50 states for just a trial run, and the recall all of them back again if the amendment passes?

Nah, I think you need to strike when the iron is hot. If you can get all the delegates seated, you need to consider and pass everything you want, beyond just these 9 ideas, and send them individually to the states for 3/4s approval.

Not a trial run... a legitimate issue that can get ratified. Make it happen. Once it happens it becomes something different. It becomes something that has happened before. As of now, it has never happened before. It's not that big of a deal in terms of cost. You don't have delegates from all 50 states. That's not how it works. You also can't pass everything you want at the same convention.... each issue will require it's own convention because it will be it's own Amendment.

You need to read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments as he lays out exactly how this works.

Well, there has been a states amendment ratifying convention. State ratifying conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a states ratifying convention, each state has its own laws for how to vote for the amendment or vote it down in its own little convention.

But a states amendment convention is not just voting for one amendment already given to it. It has to create, edit, amend and finaly vote on its amendments. And there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the state constitutional amendment convention to any single set of topics. They can do whatever they want. That is how we went from the Articles of Confederation to the current Constitution, a runaway constitutional amendment convention.

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In contrast to those separate state ratification conventions, a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution would be a single federal convention. While there have been calls for a second federal convention based on a single issue such as the balanced budget amendment, it is not clear whether a convention summoned in this way would be legally bound to limit discussion to a single issue; law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit", whereas law professor Michael Rappaport believes that a limited convention is possible.

So it would be all states and it would be expensive and time consuming.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't have the energy to read it right now but find it interesting when people place such emphasis on the original intent of the constitution from the founders. The document was genius but was also written generations ago during a time where values, policies, and the world as a whole was a completely different place. Most feel that the genius of the constitution is its ability to evolve. I question why such individuals fight so hard to revert to the past when we should be focused on doing the best in the progressive society in which we live. Apologies for straying off topic but I thought it a noteworthy observation. I'll give the proposal a read tomorrow.

We are a Constitutional Republic. That means our government is based on that document. I'm so sick of half-educated nimrods shrieking "it's old it doesn't matter anymore!"

We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. We have not changed our form of government. If we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, then we aren't a republic at all, but a tyranny, because we did not decide to change our government. The feds did not obtain permission to ignore the constitution and write illegal laws that grant them power to grant themselves power.

We are also a nation of laws and still on the books in many cities it is illegal to sneeze on the street for it may spook the horses... Use your brain and common sense. Of course the Constitution defines the foundation of our government, however, our laws need to evolve with our society.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

se·ces·sion1
[səˈseSHən]

NOUN

1. the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state:

Once secession was done, the US had not say in the matter. Constitutionally all they could legally do was bellyache. Deal with it.

 

[Skylar]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Undoing a law removes people of their rights?

Undoing a court ruling certainly does. Especially the rulings that Conservatives want to overturn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The TX Plan"

A 'plan' for conservative racists and bigots upset that the Constitution and its case law prohibit them from seeking to disadvantage those whom they fear and hate through force of law.

 

[OKTexas]

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

And EXACTLY where can that be ascertained in either the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision? You're forgetting about the chicken and egg conundrum you've created with your silly argument! You've forgotten the timing of certain occurrences and SCOTUS decisions that put the lie to your horseshit, Tex!

Oh right, a federal entity deciding, no conflict of interest there. LMAO

Great dodge to avoid responding to the direct question along with the conundrum of your creation and the timing issue. You're a brave soul, Tex!

That was no dodge, the supreme court ruled after the civil war that the States had no right to succeed, do you find that surprising, I don't. I will note however that the supreme court never spoke on the subject prior to the war. In fact Lincoln made a brief attempt to negotiate the souths return to the union, even said he would allow them to keep their slaves. The fact is the feds are a creation of the States and if they so chose they can abolish the federal government at will.

You're STILL dodging fool! You claimed, "... no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union." My response to you was to show where in the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision that was true. Your only response to that was a vague, non specific, "... the supreme court ruled after the civil war that the States had no right to succeed... ." What case was that lad? You couldn't find the case to cite it you know-nothing? Or did you find it and come across something that blows you BS out of the bloody water? Something like the following;

From the Syllabus in Texas v. White (1869), opinion Chief Justice Chase:
"4. 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."

5. But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States." [Emphasis Added]

The above quote from Texas v. White above clearly buries your claim 6' under that the States have the right to secede if they wish! It was Unconstitutional before the Civil War and it was unconstitutional after the Civil War. Again Bubba the tail doesn't wag the dog.

The Supremes had no reason to address secession before it started in 1861, fool, because no such issue had ever occurred in our short history up to that point. As far as the States abolishing the National government at their will, CITE THE FUCKING AUTHORITY,TEX! You can't and won't cite any authority for that vacuous claim, IDIOT, because there is none! Tex, your gun has had a vasectomy and is shootin' blanks! You are looking like an impotent jackass, so you should really quit embarrassing yourself.

You still haven't shown that the Constitution prohibits anyone form seceding, no where in it does it say the union is perpetual. I said the court didn't rule on it till after the war was ended. You just posted the very case I had in mind, which was handed down 4, count them, 4 years after the war was over. In case you math skills are as impaired as your reading skills, 1869 - 1865 = 4. Have a nice night.

 

[OKTexas]

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

They had no authority once that territory was peacefully withdrawn from their jurisdiction. Just like the former soviet union had no authority over the countries that withdrew from their union.

Your attempt to deceive is noted. Your argument is still Sophistry.

And yours is, well, just empty.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"The TX Plan"

A 'plan' for conservative racists and bigots upset that the Constitution and its case law prohibit them from seeking to disadvantage those whom they fear and hate through force of law.

Clayton, are you posting drunk again?

You know you will get into trouble again if you leave the basement TV on.

 

[OKTexas]

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

They had no authority once that territory was peacefully withdrawn from their jurisdiction. Just like the former soviet union had no authority over the countries that withdrew from their union.

And when you steal something, is that your defense? It wasn't theft, your honor, I peacefully withdrew the property from someone else's possession and now it belongs to me. Sell your argument to one of those "poorly educated" people whom Trump says he loves.

Comparison to the dissolution of the USSR is a false analogy.

Dissolution of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And?

 

[OKTexas]

"The TX Plan"

A 'plan' for conservative racists and bigots upset that the Constitution and its case law prohibit them from seeking to disadvantage those whom they fear and hate through force of law.

Clayton, are you posting drunk again?

You know you will get into trouble again if you leave the basement TV on.