The End of Liberalism

[geauxtohell]

The Supremacy clause prevents the states from making laws that conflict with federal law. The mere act of secession accomplishes that.

Your rights are protected by the State. Have your rights violated and see where you go for redress.

Secession contradicts to no federal laws, as the state becomes no longer a part of the union and is not subject to the Union's laws. You're pretty much stating that every law Congress passes today is illegal because it ontradicts those passed by the British parliment.

You're stupid. To leave the union, and consequently stop complying with federal and constitutional law is in fact a contradiction. The states entered into a binding agreement when they signed the constitution. Oh, and btw, with few exceptions, states were U.S. POSSESSIONS before they became states.

And in case you missed it, the British were defeated and left.

Yeah, I never really understood the "we are following the constitution by shredding it!" talking point either.

 

[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.

I believe that weapons are a tool to defend ourselves and our interest. I can't see any harm in that since there will always be those that want to take away what you think is yours such as life and property.

 

[geauxtohell]

So, once again the right wingers' answer is that he with the biggest gun is correct


Nice to know you have principles

It would be nice if human nature was good enough that we did not need guns but that isn't the case and that wasn't the case with the civil war. In that war, it did not matter if the north or south was right but who had the biggest gun.

The South fired on the North first.

Let's not act like the poor South was victimized by the North.

BTW, throughout history, the "guy with the biggest gun" has won.

Deal with it.

 

[geauxtohell]

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!

 

[☭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.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Sorry, but no. Nowhere in the 10th Amendment are states given the latitude to leave the union. The confederacy made the same lame argument.

By the way, the last time I checked, the States do have, and exercise the right of self determination.

You know, that's the whole reason we have state level elections and referendums.

I might buy into this whole "secession is necessary" bullshit if there weren't legal and proper mechanisms to change our system built into our laws.

Since there are, it just comes across as a bunch of sour grapes by a fringe group of people.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sorry, but no. Nowhere in the 10th Amendment are states given the latitude to leave the union

I see you've never read it.

That's a shame.

 

[geauxtohell]

Sorry, but no. Nowhere in the 10th Amendment are states given the latitude to leave the union

I see you've never read it.

That's a shame.

Enlighten me. Show me in the 10th amendment where it is specifically stated that a State can withdraw from the union.

It's not there and you know it. So, you are left to infer. You are free to infer, but it doesn't make it so, and that is why we have a court system to settle these matters.

In regard to the 10th and secession, the courts have already decided.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Sorry, but no. Nowhere in the 10th Amendment are states given the latitude to leave the union

I see you've never read it.

That's a shame.

Enlighten me. Show me in the 10th amendment where it is specifically stated that a State can withdraw from the union.

It's not there and you know it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

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.

Until you show where the constitution denies them the authority, they have it. Cut and dry and clear as day.

 

[geauxtohell]

I see you've never read it.

That's a shame.

Enlighten me. Show me in the 10th amendment where it is specifically stated that a State can withdraw from the union.

It's not there and you know it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

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.

Until you show where the constitution denies them the authority, they have it. Cut and dry and clear as day.

Yep. Still not seeing a secession clause in there. Like I said, you are left to infer meaning in the constitution.

I fully admit that there is no specific wording for or against secession in the constitution. However, if there was any doubt, the Supreme Court made the final interpretation on the matter in 1869.

Now let me guess, you don't think it's constitutional for the SCOTUS to make such a determination either?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yep. Still not seeing a secession clause in there

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

I fully admit that there is no specific wording for or against secession in the constitution. However, if there was any doubt, the Supreme Court made the final interpretation on the matter in 1869.

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

 

[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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You already proved they have the right in post 170.

 

[geauxtohell]

You already proved they have the right in post 170.

I submit that this issue is too large to be "proven" on a message board.

But if you want to scamper along, I understand.

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

People can debate this until they are blue in the face, it won't matter in the end. It didn't matter in 1861. Underneath the whole issue is no clear-cut language to support the legality of secession.

Furthermore, the issue could have theoretically been debated before 1869.

As it stands, it's a non-issue now. The courts have made their interpretation of the 10th Amendment, and it is drastically different than yours.

 

[nodoginnafight]

wrong - it was already proven they DO NOT have the right. Most emphatically - no matter how sour your grapes are.

 

[nodoginnafight]

something to chew:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.‘ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

There Is No “Right of Secession” Guaranteed by the Constitution « The Good Democrat

 

[geauxtohell]

wrong - it was already proven they DO NOT have the right. Most emphatically - no matter how sour your grapes are.

The neo-secessionists will just continue to move the goalpoast until it suits their agenda. Unhappy with the White v. Texas ruling? Then simply claim the courts don't have that authority.

All while claiming to be "purists" when it comes to the constitution.

It's an intellectual circle jerk anyways. The country will not allow states to secede, just as we didn't in 1861.

All the pointed headed academic debate in all the law schools and internet chat rooms won't change the outcome.

Of course, the neo-secessionists realize this, and that is why this is really just all talk on their part.

It was a lopsided fight in 1861 when the average citizen could match the firepower of the average federal infantryman.

Times are much different now.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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 ......"

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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..'