The Flag of Treason

[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.

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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

Sorry, but no document says that.

 

[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.

"...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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

Lincoln did NOT want a war, he refused to call up the Army or militia UNTIL South Carolina attacked the US.

 

[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.

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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

SEZ WHO??? What are you relying on to make that claim. Please post what you are relying on.

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

Another totally unsupported bullshit claim.

 

[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.

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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

Lincoln did NOT want a war, he refused to call up the Army or militia UNTIL South Carolina attacked the US.

Horseshit. Lincoln was doing everything possible to start a war.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

Emminant.....


I can't.....

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you are just arguing because you KNOW I am right and that chaps your ass.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

 

[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.

"...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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

Lincoln did NOT want a war, he refused to call up the Army or militia UNTIL South Carolina attacked the US.

Horseshit. Lincoln was doing everything possible to start a war.

Right thats why he did not call for the Militia did nothing while forts were seized and nothing while armories were seized. He did not call the Army out he stated FOR the RECORD he wanted NO WAR. You sir are a lying moron. The facts are clear as a bell.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

Emminant.....


I can't.....

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you are just arguing because you KNOW I am right and that chaps your ass.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

What about the prohibition amendment???


It has jack shit to do with this discussion, but same with "necessary and proper" so, why not. Throw in the 25th Amendment while you're at it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

 

[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.

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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

 

[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.

"...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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

 

[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.

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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

SEZ WHO??? What are you relying on to make that claim. Please post what you are relying on.

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

Wrong again, shit for brains. Why don't you try using actual facts and logic rather that just posting your petulant demands?

 

[Asclepias]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

Emminant.....


I can't.....

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you are just arguing because you KNOW I am right and that chaps your ass.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

What about the prohibition amendment???


It has jack shit to do with this discussion, but same with "necessary and proper" so, why not. Throw in the 25th Amendment while you're at it.

Did you read the link? It specifically mentions eminent domain.

" The right of Congress to use all known and appropriate means for collecting revenue, including the distraint of property for federal taxes, 6 and to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for public use, 7 have greatly extended the range of national power. "

 

[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.

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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.

History of international law - Wikipedia​

​

Basic concepts of international law such as treaties can be traced back thousands of years.[1] Early examples of treaties include around 2100 BC an agreement between the rulers of the city-states of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia, inscribed on a stone block, setting a prescribed boundary between their two states.​

Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%

 

[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.

"...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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

SEZ WHO??? What are you relying on to make that claim. Please post what you are relying on.

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

Wrong again, shit for brains. Why don't you try using actual facts and logic rather that just posting your petulant demands?

The only poster with OUT any facts is YOU. And you are either a bald faced liar or to stupid to breed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

 

[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.

"...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.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.

Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%

LOL god you are stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

 

[Nostra]

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.

KKK endorsed Hitlery.