The End of Liberalism

[uscitizen]

Exactly, nowhere is it denied to them. The case is settled; you've refuted your own stupidity.

Uh huh. Texas V. White. Your thoughts?

Political statements that seek to justify the Union's actions mean nothing in the face of the document itself.

Considering we've been one nation since 1865, I'd say it means something.

You don't have to like that the Union crushed the rebellion, but you have to live with it.

we added no states since 1865?

 

[geauxtohell]

Again, I'll take all your "well learned politics" and raise you the wrath of the federal Army.

yes, threatening violence proves your argument

Youkeep being a lying statist; I'll continue to stand for principles and the rights the Constitution is supposed to protect

I haven't threatened anyone. I am just pragmatic enough to realize what the ultimate outcome will be, whether you think it's right or wrong.

What have I lied about specifically?

You can stand for whatever you want to. It won't make a difference at the end of the day.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

TvW set the stage for American imperialism, including forcefully annexing and taking over other sovereign nations.

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly, nowhere is it denied to them. The case is settled; you've refuted your own stupidity.

Uh huh. Texas V. White. Your thoughts?

Political statements that seek to justify the Union's actions mean nothing in the face of the document itself.

Considering we've been one nation since 1865, I'd say it means something.

You don't have to like that the Union crushed the rebellion, but you have to live with it.

we added no states since 1865?

We certainly haven't lost any.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

We certainly haven't lost any.

Because we shoot anyone who believes in self-determination.

 

[geauxtohell]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,

NOT: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect opt-out-if-you'd-like confederation ......"

Nor 'We the People who loathe rights and liberties, in order to surrender our right to self-determination so we may be ruled over by a state just like the one we just fought to break away from..'

Man-oh-man. If only there were some sort of historical event to consider this issue under...

Oh yeah, there is. The Civil War.

Let me guess: Lincoln was a tyrant! The North's actions were illegal! blah, blah, ******* blah.

All while sitting in your cozy little house surfing the cozy little internet in a country where you have an unprecedented amount of freedom.

Yeah, you poor neo-secessionists are so oppressed. At least the South had the tariff to be pissed off about. You guys just have sour grapes over imagined injustices.

At any rate, what is your revolution going to consist of? A proletarian uprising?

 

[geauxtohell]

We certainly haven't lost any.

Because we shoot anyone who believes in self-determination.

Really? Who is the last person to be shot that believed in "self determination".

Again, you neo-secessionists might have a point if states didn't have their own legislatures and laws and if we didn't have legal mechanisms in place to change our government.

So what exactly are you whining about again?

 

[geauxtohell]

TvW set the stage for American imperialism, including forcefully annexing and taking over other sovereign nations.

It also made secession an illegal act.

And it has persisted without any significant legal challenge for 150 years.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

TvW set the stage for American imperialism, including forcefully annexing and taking over other sovereign nations.

It also made secession an illegal act.

Wait...

You just said it became an illegal avt with TvW

THAT MEANS IT WAS LEGAL DURING THE SECESSION

You just proved that, even using your arguments, the Confederates violated no law.

 

[geauxtohell]

TvW set the stage for American imperialism, including forcefully annexing and taking over other sovereign nations.

It also made secession an illegal act.

Wait...

You just said it became an illegal avt with TvW

THAT MEANS IT WAS LEGAL DURING THE SECESSION

You just proved that, even using your arguments, the Confederates violated no law.

You haven't been reading my posts, have you?

I said there might have been a debate prior to 1869, but it is moot when stacked up against the reality of the matter.

All that ignores the fact that the Confederacy opened fire on a Union position. That under itself was an act of war. Thus, even if we accept that secession was a legal maneuver (which was not established as the confederacy never took it's case before the federal government where it could be properly debated. They just left.), firing on a federal garrison was illegal and the rest is history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The CSA started the war by firing the first shots on Ft. Sumter. The federal government properly and prudently retaliated by destroying the CSA. Pro-secessionist diatribes might be fun as mental masturbation but the results will still be sterile. So let's move on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I already did, as did KK. It's called the Tenth Amendment, dumbass.

Now, since you cannot show where the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it is denied the states, that means they 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

Thanks for playing.

the tenth amendment does not give states the right to have laws that conflict with federal law, so unless you're going to secede while continuing to follow all federal laws, you can't legally secede.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What prevents a county from seceding from a state?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I already did, as did KK. It's called the Tenth Amendment, dumbass.

Now, since you cannot show where the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it is denied the states, that means they 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

Thanks for playing.

the tenth amendment does not give states the right to have laws that conflict with federal law, so unless you're going to secede while continuing to follow all federal laws, you can't legally secede.

There was no federal law against cessation, no law can ever be passed without a Constitutional amendment, and once you leave the Union, you're not bound by the laws of what is now a foreign nation.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What prevents a county from seceding from a state?

What?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I already did, as did KK. It's called the Tenth Amendment, dumbass.

Now, since you cannot show where the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it is denied the states, that means they 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

Thanks for playing.

the tenth amendment does not give states the right to have laws that conflict with federal law, so unless you're going to secede while continuing to follow all federal laws, you can't legally secede.

There was no federal law against cessation, no law can ever be passed without a Constitutional amendment, and once you leave the Union, you're not bound by the laws of what is now a foreign nation.

What? There doesn't need to be a specific law against secession, because the mere act of secession breaks federal laws.

And the federal government passes laws all the time without a Constitutional amendment, what in the world are you talking about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

NOT: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect opt-out-if-you'd-like confederation ......"

Nor 'We the People who loathe rights and liberties, in order to surrender our right to self-determination so we may be ruled over by a state just like the one we just fought to break away from..'

Man-oh-man. If only there were some sort of historical event to consider this issue under...

Oh yeah, there is. The Civil War.

Let me guess: Lincoln was a tyrant! The North's actions were illegal! blah, blah, ******* blah.

All while sitting in your cozy little house surfing the cozy little internet in a country where you have an unprecedented amount of freedom.

Yeah, you poor neo-secessionists are so oppressed. At least the South had the tariff to be pissed off about. You guys just have sour grapes over imagined injustices.

At any rate, what is your revolution going to consist of? A proletarian uprising?

I miss the good old days when conservatives claimed Lincoln as their own and took credit for conservatism freeing the slaves. Back when the GOP was the party of Lincoln,

not the party of Jefferson Davis.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nor 'We the People who loathe rights and liberties, in order to surrender our right to self-determination so we may be ruled over by a state just like the one we just fought to break away from..'

Man-oh-man. If only there were some sort of historical event to consider this issue under...

Oh yeah, there is. The Civil War.

Let me guess: Lincoln was a tyrant! The North's actions were illegal! blah, blah, ******* blah.

All while sitting in your cozy little house surfing the cozy little internet in a country where you have an unprecedented amount of freedom.

Yeah, you poor neo-secessionists are so oppressed. At least the South had the tariff to be pissed off about. You guys just have sour grapes over imagined injustices.

At any rate, what is your revolution going to consist of? A proletarian uprising?

I miss the good old days when conservatives claimed Lincoln as their own and took credit for conservatism freeing the slaves. Back when the GOP was the party of Lincoln,

not the party of Jefferson Davis.

Beats the hell out of what the DNC has become. The Party of Benedict Arnold.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

the tenth amendment does not give states the right to have laws that conflict with federal law, so unless you're going to secede while continuing to follow all federal laws, you can't legally secede.

There was no federal law against cessation, no law can ever be passed without a Constitutional amendment, and once you leave the Union, you're not bound by the laws of what is now a foreign nation.

What? There doesn't need to be a specific law against secession, because the mere act of secession breaks federal laws.

And the federal government passes laws all the time without a

Wrong. The States have the power to secede and pursue their right to self-determination. This is per the Constitution as has been proven repeatedly in this very thread.

 

[ihopehefails]

I'm still waiting for you to show me where the constitution denies the people or the member states the right to self-determination or the power to exercise it.

Now the Rebels are right and legal if they win but not if they lose? Once again we establish that your people have no values or principles and simply believe in the virtue of the biggest gun.

Not this circle jerk again.

How about you show us the part of the constitution where states are allowed to leave? It's not there and you know it. It is the same for your rhetorical question.

As for your last:

Do you mean to tell me that history is written by the winners? I am shocked by this!

The fact that it is not mentioned in any part gives that right to the states since states have any power that is not already granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to them by the constitution.