The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[JakeStarkey]

Johnson acted with the authority and awesome magnificence of the state and federal law.

The authorities were within war time authority to replace the TN constitution.


Since there is no mention of secession in federal law, the procedure was not legal.

Your commentary on SCOTUS and its powers remains ridiculous. SCOTUS has opined that secession is illegal. That it is the end of it unless you can a law that rescinds that finding before SCOTUS.

To those of you who have asked me why continue this charade, the answer is that it amuses me to play this charlatan like a weakening trout on the line.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Johnson acted with the authority and awesome magnificence of the state and federal law.

The authorities were within war time authority to replace the TN constitution.


Since there is no mention of secession in federal law, the procedure was not legal.

Your commentary on SCOTUS and its powers remains ridiculous. SCOTUS has opined that secession is illegal. That it is the end of it unless you can a law that rescinds that finding before SCOTUS.

To those of you who have asked me why continue this charade, the answer is that it amuses me to play this charlatan like a weakening trout on the line.

Now, James, by what authority do you act?

This must be answered sufficiently before we go any further.

 

[Dan Daly]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

1. There is no Constitutional right to secession - indeed, the Constitution is a document that outlines the rights and powers of the federal government, not those of the people or the States. But, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, we have an inherent human right to throw off oppressive government.

I don't buy into the notion that the "civil war decided the issue" any more than I buy into the notion that beating your wife to a pulp decides the issue of whether she has a right to divorce you.

 

[natstew]

JakeStarkey is proving himself to be the idiot we know he is.

 

[natstew]

James clearly does not understand the 10th. But he is harmless, so let him putter along.

Jake, you are the one who, 'clearly does not understand the 10th'. James has it right on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, guys, you have lost it.

The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.

If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.

 

[James Everett]

Johnson acted with the authority and awesome magnificence of the state and federal law.

The authorities were within war time authority to replace the TN constitution.


Since there is no mention of secession in federal law, the procedure was not legal.

Your commentary on SCOTUS and its powers remains ridiculous. SCOTUS has opined that secession is illegal. That it is the end of it unless you can a law that rescinds that finding before SCOTUS.

To those of you who have asked me why continue this charade, the answer is that it amuses me to play this charlatan like a weakening trout on the line.

Now, James, by what authority do you act?

This must be answered sufficiently before we go any further.

JAKE,
As I have told you already..,....
YOUR CONstitutions first amendment is by what authority I act while under occupation. You may want to stop for a moment and read it. Also JAKE, no one is asking you why you post. We all know it is because you have been shamed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for admitting you have no authority except by OUR constitution.

Thus, it is YOUR Constitution, YOU are subject to it, the South was crushed by the North wielding it, and YOU have forfeited the thread. You are simply stumbling and bumbling. Enjoy your mental masturbation but remember that it is always sterile.

Sweet.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, guys, you have lost it.

The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.

If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.

There is no question that the Union refused to recognize the legal fiction of the Southern Cause; and, that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones, Cause or no Cause.

 

[James Everett]

Thank you for admitting you have no authority except by OUR constitution.

Thus, it is YOUR Constitution, YOU are subject to it, the South was crushed by the North wielding it, and YOU have forfeited the thread. You are simply stumbling and bumbling. Enjoy your mental masturbation but remember that it is always sterile.

Sweet.

Well DUH. JAKE, of course I am subject to the laws of YOUR government during the occupation. I never claim different. If you had bothered to read the introduction to the CSAgov.org website, you would have already understood this. You really are slow. Do you ride the short bus to school?
What you seem unable to understand is the meaning of "occupation" anytime one State is under the occupation of another, the people thereof are subjects of and subjected to the occupying government and it's laws.
This however is repugnant to our Declaration of Independence to which the Southern people are the true and rightful heirs.
If you understood our 1776 declaration, you would understand that rightful government is derived from the consent of the people, not by force, which is what YOUR government imposed, hence turning it's back on OUR Declaration rejecting it in favor of tyranny by imposed force.

 

[James Everett]

Sorry, guys, you have lost it.

The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.

If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.

There is no question that the Union refused to recognize the legal fiction of the Southern Cause; and, that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones, Cause or no Cause.

I am not certain what point you are trying to make here.
But what I would state to you is this....
Absent a law making something unlawful or illegal such as a law that makes secession an illegal and unlawful act then we must refer to the first cause which is the fact that there was, not, nor is, a law that states that secession is an illegal and unlawful act. Now that being the case; the States that seceded were no longer subject to the U.S. CONstitution including the second amendment to it, or any of the laws thereof.

 

[James Everett]

Sorry, guys, you have lost it.

The Civil War settled all those questions, and I am still waiting for James' "authority" by which he pontificates.

If he is doing it for fun, that's ok, but if he thinks this is anything significant, nope, it is not.

There is no question that the Union refused to recognize the legal fiction of the Southern Cause; and, that Only well regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones, Cause or no Cause.

Further, the State governments would never agree to an amendment to the U.S. CONstitution, even today, that would deny their authority in the matter of secession. I doubt that the people would even support that right of the people of their State to secession.

 

[James Everett]

JakeStarkey is proving himself to be the idiot we know he is.

Agreed.

 

[Agit8r]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- James Madison; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)

 

[James Everett]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- James Madison; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)

Forty acres and a mule did not last, as once the occupying U.S. Govt saw that the freed slaves were not interested in using that forty acres and a mule to grow cotton (which had been a major commodity for trade with Europe), because their concern was in growing food for their families, the occupying U.S. Govt reneged on that promise. The occupying govt's economy was in shambles and cotton was needed to restore that economy, therefore the land was given back to the former owners, and share cropping was born.
As for Madison' letter to Mr. Trist, that one has been used over and again as a pathetic attempt at evidence of a none existent law. First, one must understand that Madison was a nationalist and one of the authors of "the Virginia plan" which was a plan to abandon federalism and the federal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This National plan was to consolidate the States into a single State under a single national government. The reason for this plan was what established the split among the Founders'. Some such as Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, wanted to establish a nation to rival the power, grandeur, and splendor of the monarchies in England and France, while others wanted to maintain the simple confederacy of States under the Articles, for the purpose of protecting one another and individual liberty.
Patrick Henry explained .......
" all those nation that have gone in search of power, grandeur, and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."
Madison, and the others Virginia plan for a National government was soundly rejected at the 1787 convention.
Madison, and cohorts were forced to compromise thus establishing a partially federal system and a partially national system in the U.S. CONstitution. This was a thorn in Madison's side, and the reason for his sour grapes, when it came to the States protecting their sovereignty.
Madison, and cohorts did not immediately get their way, though that day was coming via Lincoln's rebellion.
Patrick Henry also stated, concerning the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that this new government.....
Cannot last, it will not last a century and will end in a violent and bloody struggle.......
Now I paraphrased here, as I do not have his direct wording in. Front of me at the moment, however the just is there and I would be off only slightly in my wording.
90 years later we had Lincoln's rebellion which ushered in the end of federalism and the beginning of a wholly national system that Madison desired under the Virginia plan, and a consolidation of the States under that wholly national system, wherein the government today is one of the power, grandeur and splendor of which Patrick Henry warned wherein the people have lost their freedom, and experience a government in a state of perpetual war and hegemony wielding that power, grandeur and splendor like a big club.
Under international law, and party may exit a multi-lateral treaty, and the other party's may remain and maintain that treaty between themselves or nullify it completely.
The States would not voluntary consolidate themselves, hence the tenth amendment was necessary before they would consider ratification.
Madison was just spouting off his nationalist opinion to Mr. Trist, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including me, however such is only the opinion of an individual, Madison's opinion was just that, HIS.
One must consider the treaty/compact/charter/ Constitution, and what the States agreed to therein, not one mans opinion.
Here the tenth amendment agreed to by the State before they would ratify trumps Madison's opinion.

 

[James Everett]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?

(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- James Madison; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)

I forgot to add, that Alexander Hamilton stated in #32 that the plan called for only
"a partial consolidation of the States"
A complete consolidation would mean that no a State could exit the union.

 

[Agit8r]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?



(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- James Madison; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)

Forty acres and a mule did not last, as once the occupying U.S. Govt saw that the freed slaves were not interested in using that forty acres and a mule to grow cotton (which had been a major commodity for trade with Europe), because their concern was in growing food for their families, the occupying U.S. Govt reneged on that promise. The occupying govt's economy was in shambles and cotton was needed to restore that economy, therefore the land was given back to the former owners, and share cropping was born.
As for Madison' letter to Mr. Trist, that one has been used over and again as a pathetic attempt at evidence of a none existent law. First, one must understand that Madison was a nationalist and one of the authors of "the Virginia plan" which was a plan to abandon federalism and the federal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This National plan was to consolidate the States into a single State under a single national government. The reason for this plan was what established the split among the Founders'. Some such as Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, wanted to establish a nation to rival the power, grandeur, and splendor of the monarchies in England and France, while others wanted to maintain the simple confederacy of States under the Articles, for the purpose of protecting one another and individual liberty.
Patrick Henry explained .......
" all those nation that have gone in search of power, grandeur, and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."
Madison, and the others Virginia plan for a National government was soundly rejected at the 1787 convention.
Madison, and cohorts were forced to compromise thus establishing a partially federal system and a partially national system in the U.S. CONstitution. This was a thorn in Madison's side, and the reason for his sour grapes, when it came to the States protecting their sovereignty.
Madison, and cohorts did not immediately get their way, though that day was coming via Lincoln's rebellion.
Patrick Henry also stated, concerning the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that this new government.....
Cannot last, it will not last a century and will end in a violent and bloody struggle.......
Now I paraphrased here, as I do not have his direct wording in. Front of me at the moment, however the just is there and I would be off only slightly in my wording.
90 years later we had Lincoln's rebellion which ushered in the end of federalism and the beginning of a wholly national system that Madison desired under the Virginia plan, and a consolidation of the States under that wholly national system, wherein the government today is one of the power, grandeur and splendor of which Patrick Henry warned wherein the people have lost their freedom, and experience a government in a state of perpetual war and hegemony wielding that power, grandeur and splendor like a big club.
Under international law, and party may exit a multi-lateral treaty, and the other party's may remain and maintain that treaty between themselves or nullify it completely.
The States would not voluntary consolidate themselves, hence the tenth amendment was necessary before they would consider ratification.
Madison was just spouting off his nationalist opinion to Mr. Trist, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including me, however such is only the opinion of an individual, Madison's opinion was just that, HIS.
One must consider the treaty/compact/charter/ Constitution, and what the States agreed to therein, not one mans opinion.
Here the tenth amendment agreed to by the State before they would ratify trumps Madison's opinion.

Funny thing though, is that it was Patrick Henry whose side lost. He refused to ratify. But a "more perfect" union was cemented anyway.

As far as 40 Acres, It doesn't appear to have ever been official policy. Reconstruction employment programs tended to involve employment by carpetbaggers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agit8r in far fewer words with far greater vision easily dismissed James' puffery.

 

[James Everett]

(1) Did the "states in rebellion" have a constitutional right to leave the Union? Why or why not? They came in voluntarily, right?



(2) What is a "proclamation" (e.g., the "Emancipation Proclamation")? Does it have the force of law within the United States? Where, in Article II does the President get this power? Why did President Lincoln not free the slaves in the Border States? Was the emancipation legal anywhere? Why was the thirteenth amendment necessary?

(3) On what legal basis did the U.S. government "take" the property of slaveholders? Were the slaveholders entitled to compensation for these freed chattel/assets (under the Fifth Amendment)? Is this what is meant when we hear of "reparations" for slavery?

When people talk about reparations, it refers to: Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

as to your first question, I'll defer to the Federalist author Madison:

"Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it."
-- James Madison; from letter to Nicholas P. Trist (Feb. 15, 1830)

Forty acres and a mule did not last, as once the occupying U.S. Govt saw that the freed slaves were not interested in using that forty acres and a mule to grow cotton (which had been a major commodity for trade with Europe), because their concern was in growing food for their families, the occupying U.S. Govt reneged on that promise. The occupying govt's economy was in shambles and cotton was needed to restore that economy, therefore the land was given back to the former owners, and share cropping was born.
As for Madison' letter to Mr. Trist, that one has been used over and again as a pathetic attempt at evidence of a none existent law. First, one must understand that Madison was a nationalist and one of the authors of "the Virginia plan" which was a plan to abandon federalism and the federal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation. This National plan was to consolidate the States into a single State under a single national government. The reason for this plan was what established the split among the Founders'. Some such as Madison, Washington, and Hamilton, wanted to establish a nation to rival the power, grandeur, and splendor of the monarchies in England and France, while others wanted to maintain the simple confederacy of States under the Articles, for the purpose of protecting one another and individual liberty.
Patrick Henry explained .......
" all those nation that have gone in search of power, grandeur, and splendor, have all fallen a sacrifice: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom."
Madison, and the others Virginia plan for a National government was soundly rejected at the 1787 convention.
Madison, and cohorts were forced to compromise thus establishing a partially federal system and a partially national system in the U.S. CONstitution. This was a thorn in Madison's side, and the reason for his sour grapes, when it came to the States protecting their sovereignty.
Madison, and cohorts did not immediately get their way, though that day was coming via Lincoln's rebellion.
Patrick Henry also stated, concerning the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, that this new government.....
Cannot last, it will not last a century and will end in a violent and bloody struggle.......
Now I paraphrased here, as I do not have his direct wording in. Front of me at the moment, however the just is there and I would be off only slightly in my wording.
90 years later we had Lincoln's rebellion which ushered in the end of federalism and the beginning of a wholly national system that Madison desired under the Virginia plan, and a consolidation of the States under that wholly national system, wherein the government today is one of the power, grandeur and splendor of which Patrick Henry warned wherein the people have lost their freedom, and experience a government in a state of perpetual war and hegemony wielding that power, grandeur and splendor like a big club.
Under international law, and party may exit a multi-lateral treaty, and the other party's may remain and maintain that treaty between themselves or nullify it completely.
The States would not voluntary consolidate themselves, hence the tenth amendment was necessary before they would consider ratification.
Madison was just spouting off his nationalist opinion to Mr. Trist, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has one, including me, however such is only the opinion of an individual, Madison's opinion was just that, HIS.
One must consider the treaty/compact/charter/ Constitution, and what the States agreed to therein, not one mans opinion.
Here the tenth amendment agreed to by the State before they would ratify trumps Madison's opinion.

Funny thing though, is that it was Patrick Henry whose side lost. He refused to ratify. But a "more perfect" union was cemented anyway.

As far as 40 Acres, It doesn't appear to have ever been official policy. Reconstruction employment programs tended to involve employment by carpetbaggers.

No, 40 and a mule was just another broken promise.
And the CONstitution was ratified by who?
The State legislatures or the people?
Also it was ratified with the States addition of the tenth amendment thus retaining their power of exiting the union individually.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you have failed in your arguments. You don't like having that said, but you will eventually have to face up to that fact. Agit8r did it so easily with so few words that the reader had to laugh at you.

There is no CSA. You have admitted your are subject to our Constitution and our SCOTUS and our government. Tought to be you, bud.