The Flag of Treason

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

 

[bripat9643]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

No one has any interest in debating your insulting accusations, fuckstick.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

No one has any interest in debating your insulting accusations, fuckstick.

Dont be mad retard. I know you will remain willfully ignorant but its fun to prove your lies wrong. Thanks for the laughs

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

No state is U.S. property, you fucking dumbass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

Lincoln did NOT attack the South nor invade UNTIL South Carolina Attacked the US at that fort. So much for all the claims otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

No one has any interest in debating your insulting accusations, fuckstick.

Dont be mad retard. I know you will remain willfully ignorant but its fun to prove your lies wrong. Thanks for the laughs

Spits the dumbest fuckstick in the forum.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

Lincoln did NOT attack the South nor invade UNTIL South Carolina Attacked the US at that fort. So much for all the claims otherwise.

You can't be accused of attacking the U.S. when you are "attacking" the Territory of South Carolina, dumbass. Refusing to leave and intruding on SC territory waters with a resupply ship were all attacks on S.C.

So much for your imbecile denials.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

Lincoln did NOT attack the South nor invade UNTIL South Carolina Attacked the US at that fort. So much for all the claims otherwise.

You can't be accused of attacking the U.S. when you are "attacking" the Territory of South Carolina, dumbass. Refusing to leave and intruding on SC territory waters with a resupply ship were all attacks on S.C.

So much for your imbecile denials.

Again for the slow and stupid Fort Sumnter was FEDERAL property NOT State property NO STATE NO MATTER what they do may claim Federal property is now state property.

 

[Asclepias]

View attachment 358350

No wonder repubs love the confederacy. They are one and the same.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

Yeah, the idea that once you join, you are not allowed to leave?


That is the type of shit you spell out very clearly, if that is your intent.

Imagine if clubs worked that way.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

 

[DukeU]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MATTER the action of the State.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG. To be true, the states would have NO PROPERTY.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My bad. It was a SCOTUS decision. 1812

???

What decision?

It was completely unclear until the war. It was not legally cleared up until Texas v. White.

SCOTUS decision based on New Englands flirtation with secession in 1812.

Can you give me a cite, or even a name?

Hartford Convention | Federalist Party, Secession, New England

Hartford Convention, (December 15, 1814–January 5, 1815), in U.S. history, a secret meeting in Hartford, Connecticut, of Federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont who were dissatisfied with Pres. James Madison’s mercantile policies and the

www.britannica.com

A secret meeting is not a SCOTUS decision. I don't get what you are trying to show me.

The issue of whether secession was legal was still debatable all the way up to the end of the war, and legally not clarified until 1869.

Unless you have something else, there was no absolute duty to remain in the Union and nothing binding about it.

Just saying the idea came from that instance that later led to the court decision in 1869.

But, it was still legitimately unclear. Those arguing that secession was legal did so in good faith (not just trying to bullshit their way out). So, it's really hard to call those States "traitors" when their actions were not clearly forbidden and appeared to be voluntary in/voluntary out.

Call them racists. Call them losers. Call them anything under the sun. Just not "traitors" because that is bullshit

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

"

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

"

Where does that say states can't secede?

It clearly states that FEDERAL PROPERTY REMAINS FEDERAL PROPERTY NO MAR+TTER the action of the State.

So, do the states have ANY PROPERTY???

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacist voted repub? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

Except the white supremacists did not all vote repub.


They were mostly the rural poor and they mostly voted their economic interests, ie the party of government handouts, ie the dems.


It was the wealthier suburbs where the GOP made it's inroads.


This has all been well known and documented for years. Are you really this ignorant of this?


Your white lib friends have been lying to you and snickering at you for falling for their stupid lies.

Sorry, you don't have the credibility to get me to watch a vid. Post links with text, and I'll address your lies.

I didnt really post it for you. I know youre too retarded to watch it.

Words. Use words or be ignored.

I'd rather you ignore me.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

Can you elaborate on why you think thats wrong?

 

[rightwinger]