Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

Then where does the Constitution say the states may not leave the Union?

 

[Elutherian]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

How come none of you want to touch the 1776 secession issue? Without secession we wouldn't be a damn country... that's pretty substantial.

But more to the point... I don't give a sh*t what the Constitution says, or Mr. Salmon says, or what Abraham Lincoln killed thousands of people to prove... if I don't have the right to secede from a political agreement... all our rights are forefeit.

 

[The Rabbi]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

Then where does the Constitution say the states may not leave the Union?

"To form a more perfect union." In the context of history that's what it means.

 

[Elutherian]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

Then where does the Constitution say the states may not leave the Union?

"To form a more perfect union." In the context of history that's what it means.

Pre-1865, secession and nullification were key to preserving freedom in the States.

Here's a good article on those two subjects from Mr. Walter Williams: Walter E. Williams : Secession or nullification - Townhall.com

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The decision clarifies the case at hand by showing the proper interpretation of the Constitution. As such, it is authoritative. Certainly more authoritative than a bunch of uneducated yayhoos mouthing of on some board somewhere.

Will you be offering anything resembling a substantive retort for your position, or keep deflecting?

There is nothing to retort to. You can jump up and down all day long and scream there is a right of secession. But the Supreme COurt of the US, the ultimate body in charge of interpreting the US Constitution says there isn't. That would seem to be more authoritative than anything you have to say on the topic.
If you have some legal proof that the Chase court got it wrong, please offer it up so we can look at it. If not, then I guess the discussion is over and your side lost.

Another words, you can't defend your position past rambling about Samuel Chase.

I am not jumping up an down. I already stated my personal opinion on the subject. Seeing how you tried to use the Preamble as your defense, you might want to do some research on the Constitution.

Yes, there is something to retort with. I challenged you to prove your position per the Constitution and the supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. It should bother you that you are arguing a position you can't honestly defend past talking points.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

Then where does the Constitution say the states may not leave the Union?

"To form a more perfect union." In the context of history that's what it means.

As I've already pointed out that's not what that meant at all. They were merely saying that the Union formed by the Constitution was meant to be "more perfect" than the Articles of Confederation. It's quite a twist to say that "To form a more perfect union" meant "No state may leave this confederation," especially when three states specifically reserved their right to leave if they decided to do so.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

How come none of you want to touch the 1776 secession issue? Without secession we wouldn't be a damn country... that's pretty substantial.

But more to the point... I don't give a sh*t what the Constitution says, or Mr. Salmon says, or what Abraham Lincoln killed thousands of people to prove... if I don't have the right to secede from a political agreement... all our rights are forefeit.

You better care what the foundation of this Republic says. We don't get our rights from government.

The Constitution lists the restrictions upon the federal government. It does not give us rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS must decide, then we all must abide.

What any of you (or me) think about this is completely irrelevant.

 

[Elutherian]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

How come none of you want to touch the 1776 secession issue? Without secession we wouldn't be a damn country... that's pretty substantial.

But more to the point... I don't give a sh*t what the Constitution says, or Mr. Salmon says, or what Abraham Lincoln killed thousands of people to prove... if I don't have the right to secede from a political agreement... all our rights are forefeit.

You better care what the foundation of this Republic says. We don't get our rights from government.

The Constitution lists the restrictions upon the federal government. It does not give us rights.

Hey, I love that the Constitution was about protecting my rights, but on all accounts... it failed miserably.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

SCOTUS must decide, then we all must abide.

What any of you (or me) think about this is completely irrelevant.

This will be your final post in the thread? You wouldn't want to spend your time being irrelevant.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

How come none of you want to touch the 1776 secession issue? Without secession we wouldn't be a damn country... that's pretty substantial.

But more to the point... I don't give a sh*t what the Constitution says, or Mr. Salmon says, or what Abraham Lincoln killed thousands of people to prove... if I don't have the right to secede from a political agreement... all our rights are forefeit.

You better care what the foundation of this Republic says. We don't get our rights from government.

The Constitution lists the restrictions upon the federal government. It does not give us rights.

Hey, I love that the Constitution was about protecting my rights, but on all accounts... it failed miserably.

The Constitution is not a perfect legal document. It was written my fallible men. That doesn't negate the fact that it is the supreme law of the land. And in that document, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, forbidding a state from peaceably leaving the union it entered of its own accord.

That is the bottom line of the thread. It should bother people that the SCOTUS has once again read things into the Constitution that are not there. It should bother people that what many of them were taught in the government donut factory school about the legality of secession, was wrong.

 

[goldcatt]

SCOTUS must decide, then we all must abide.

What any of you (or me) think about this is completely irrelevant.

This will be your final post in the thread? You wouldn't want to spend your time being irrelevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

Will you be offering anything resembling a substantive retort for your position, or keep deflecting?

There is nothing to retort to. You can jump up and down all day long and scream there is a right of secession. But the Supreme COurt of the US, the ultimate body in charge of interpreting the US Constitution says there isn't. That would seem to be more authoritative than anything you have to say on the topic.
If you have some legal proof that the Chase court got it wrong, please offer it up so we can look at it. If not, then I guess the discussion is over and your side lost.

Another words, you can't defend your position past rambling about Samuel Chase.

I am not jumping up an down. I already stated my personal opinion on the subject. Seeing how you tried to use the Preamble as your defense, you might want to do some research on the Constitution.

Yes, there is something to retort with. I challenged you to prove your position per the Constitution and the supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. It should bother you that you are arguing a position you can't honestly defend past talking points.

There's no rambling. That's the lastr word on the subject. Show some authoritative legal source that supports your bizarre reasoning and we can talk.
Up down. Up down.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is nothing to retort to. You can jump up and down all day long and scream there is a right of secession. But the Supreme COurt of the US, the ultimate body in charge of interpreting the US Constitution says there isn't. That would seem to be more authoritative than anything you have to say on the topic.
If you have some legal proof that the Chase court got it wrong, please offer it up so we can look at it. If not, then I guess the discussion is over and your side lost.

Another words, you can't defend your position past rambling about Samuel Chase.

I am not jumping up an down. I already stated my personal opinion on the subject. Seeing how you tried to use the Preamble as your defense, you might want to do some research on the Constitution.

Yes, there is something to retort with. I challenged you to prove your position per the Constitution and the supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. It should bother you that you are arguing a position you can't honestly defend past talking points.

There's no rambling. That's the lastr word on the subject. Show some authoritative legal source that supports your bizarre reasoning and we can talk.
Up down. Up down.

FindLaw: Cases and Codes: U.S. Constitution

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There is nothing to retort to. You can jump up and down all day long and scream there is a right of secession. But the Supreme COurt of the US, the ultimate body in charge of interpreting the US Constitution says there isn't. That would seem to be more authoritative than anything you have to say on the topic.
If you have some legal proof that the Chase court got it wrong, please offer it up so we can look at it. If not, then I guess the discussion is over and your side lost.

Another words, you can't defend your position past rambling about Samuel Chase.

I am not jumping up an down. I already stated my personal opinion on the subject. Seeing how you tried to use the Preamble as your defense, you might want to do some research on the Constitution.

Yes, there is something to retort with. I challenged you to prove your position per the Constitution and the supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. It should bother you that you are arguing a position you can't honestly defend past talking points.

There's no rambling. That's the lastr word on the subject. Show some authoritative legal source that supports your bizarre reasoning and we can talk.
Up down. Up down.

There is nothing bizarre about what I have said thus far. If you knew the Constitution, supporting founding documents, and founding history, you would know better.

When you make a claim in debate and someone challenges you to defend your position with fact, the onus is on you to do just that. At this point in time, the onus is on you to prove your constitutional assertion that it is illegal to peaceably secede from the union of the United States. You keep deflecting. I am not taking the deflecting bait.

Prove your position per the Constitution. You haven't even come close yet.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another words, you can't defend your position past rambling about Samuel Chase.

I am not jumping up an down. I already stated my personal opinion on the subject. Seeing how you tried to use the Preamble as your defense, you might want to do some research on the Constitution.

Yes, there is something to retort with. I challenged you to prove your position per the Constitution and the supporting founding documents. You don't seem to be able to do that. It should bother you that you are arguing a position you can't honestly defend past talking points.

There's no rambling. That's the lastr word on the subject. Show some authoritative legal source that supports your bizarre reasoning and we can talk.
Up down. Up down.

There is nothing bizarre about what I have said thus far. If you knew the Constitution, supporting founding documents, and founding history, you would know better.

When you make a claim in debate and someone challenges you to defend your position with fact, the onus is on you to do just that. At this point in time, the onus is on you to prove your constitutional assertion that it is illegal to peaceably secede from the union of the United States. You keep deflecting. I am not taking the deflecting bait.

Prove your position per the Constitution. You haven't even come close yet.

I did. The Supreme Court made the determination. Do you have a source that is more authoritative in Constitutional law than the Supreme Court? If so, bring it out.
Up down Up down.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing from silence. That isn't very persuasive to anyone.

 

[goldcatt]

There's no rambling. That's the lastr word on the subject. Show some authoritative legal source that supports your bizarre reasoning and we can talk.
Up down. Up down.

There is nothing bizarre about what I have said thus far. If you knew the Constitution, supporting founding documents, and founding history, you would know better.

When you make a claim in debate and someone challenges you to defend your position with fact, the onus is on you to do just that. At this point in time, the onus is on you to prove your constitutional assertion that it is illegal to peaceably secede from the union of the United States. You keep deflecting. I am not taking the deflecting bait.

Prove your position per the Constitution. You haven't even come close yet.

I did. The Supreme Court made the determination. Do you have a source that is more authoritative in Constitutional law than the Supreme Court? If so, bring it out.
Up down Up down.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing from silence. That isn't very persuasive to anyone.

What was the basis for the SCOTUS ruling?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There's no rambling. That's the lastr word on the subject. Show some authoritative legal source that supports your bizarre reasoning and we can talk.
Up down. Up down.

There is nothing bizarre about what I have said thus far. If you knew the Constitution, supporting founding documents, and founding history, you would know better.

When you make a claim in debate and someone challenges you to defend your position with fact, the onus is on you to do just that. At this point in time, the onus is on you to prove your constitutional assertion that it is illegal to peaceably secede from the union of the United States. You keep deflecting. I am not taking the deflecting bait.

Prove your position per the Constitution. You haven't even come close yet.

I did. The Supreme Court made the determination. Do you have a source that is more authoritative in Constitutional law than the Supreme Court? If so, bring it out.
Up down Up down.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing from silence. That isn't very persuasive to anyone.

You haven't defended anything. All you have done is say Samuel Chase several times and assert the Preamble forbids peaceful secession.

If you don't know the Constitution, how do you know Samuel P. Chase got it right?

I asked you specifically to defend your case per the Constitution not the SCOTUS. You can't do it because you don't know what you are talking about.

Admit you can't defend your position per the Constitution but still believe what you do. That would be honest at least.

You come in the thread and mock people and don't have the first clue what you are talking about, when it comes to the Constitution. All you have are talking points, deflection, and Google search.

It should bother you that you are debating in such a fashion. It should inspire you to research what exactly you believe and why per the Constitution. Instead, you tell me my beliefs are bizarre, while you patiently wait for me to take some detour were you feel more comfortable with the debate scenery. Not going to happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing bizarre about what I have said thus far. If you knew the Constitution, supporting founding documents, and founding history, you would know better.

When you make a claim in debate and someone challenges you to defend your position with fact, the onus is on you to do just that. At this point in time, the onus is on you to prove your constitutional assertion that it is illegal to peaceably secede from the union of the United States. You keep deflecting. I am not taking the deflecting bait.

Prove your position per the Constitution. You haven't even come close yet.

I did. The Supreme Court made the determination. Do you have a source that is more authoritative in Constitutional law than the Supreme Court? If so, bring it out.
Up down Up down.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing from silence. That isn't very persuasive to anyone.

You haven't defended anything. All you have done is say Samuel Chase several times and assert the Preamble forbids peaceful secession.

If you don't know the Constitution, how do you know Samuel P. Chase got it right?

I asked you specifically to defend your case per the Constitution not the SCOTUS. You can't do it because you don't know what you are talking about.

Admit you can't defend your position per the Constitution but still believe what you do. That would be honest at least.

You come in the thread and mock people and don't have the first clue what you are talking about, when it comes to the Constitution. All you have are talking points, deflection, and Google search.

It should bother you that you are debating in such a fashion. It should inspire you to research what exactly you believe and why per the Constitution. Instead, you tell me my beliefs are bizarre, while you patiently wait for me to take some detour were you feel more comfortable with the debate scenery. Not going to happen.

Please point out where it says that states can secede. It doesn't. So we rely on Supreme Court precedent. Which in this case decides they can't.
Up down. Up down.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I did. The Supreme Court made the determination. Do you have a source that is more authoritative in Constitutional law than the Supreme Court? If so, bring it out.
Up down Up down.

You on the other hand seem to be arguing from silence. That isn't very persuasive to anyone.

You haven't defended anything. All you have done is say Samuel Chase several times and assert the Preamble forbids peaceful secession.

If you don't know the Constitution, how do you know Samuel P. Chase got it right?

I asked you specifically to defend your case per the Constitution not the SCOTUS. You can't do it because you don't know what you are talking about.

Admit you can't defend your position per the Constitution but still believe what you do. That would be honest at least.

You come in the thread and mock people and don't have the first clue what you are talking about, when it comes to the Constitution. All you have are talking points, deflection, and Google search.

It should bother you that you are debating in such a fashion. It should inspire you to research what exactly you believe and why per the Constitution. Instead, you tell me my beliefs are bizarre, while you patiently wait for me to take some detour were you feel more comfortable with the debate scenery. Not going to happen.

Please point out where it says that states can secede. It doesn't. So we rely on Supreme Court precedent. Which in this case decides they can't.
Up down. Up down.

That's not how the Constitution works, as per the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The states have those powers not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. Secession is not denied to the states.