The U.S.A. Constitution!

[Centinel]

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. The constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

I also agree that all laws passed by congress must be pursuant to the constitution. Also, any law enacted that is incongruent with the constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land.

So is there a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

 

[Skylar]

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

 

[Centinel]

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

 

[Skylar]

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

 

[Centinel]

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

 

[Skylar]

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

 

[Centinel]

No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land.

I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

 

[Skylar]

Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause.

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States.

You lose again.

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

 

[Centinel]

But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.

Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

 

[Skylar]

Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details.

There's no where left for you to go.

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.


Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

 

[Centinel]

Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.


Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession violates any law. You have failed.

 

[Skylar]

The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.


Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession is against the law.

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

 

[Centinel]

There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.


Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession is against the law.

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

 

[Skylar]

Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Try again.

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.


Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession is against the law.

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

 

[Centinel]

I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.


Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession is against the law.

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries. Congress doesn't have the power to tax Mexico, Canada, or Lichtenstein. Were a state to leave the union, it would have no effect on the power of congress to tax the remaining states in the union.

You have also failed to cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to pass a law forbidding secession.

Keep flailing.

 

[Skylar]

Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession is against the law.

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.

And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.

Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.

As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.

 

[Centinel]

Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession is against the law.

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.

And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.

Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.

As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.

If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.

Until you do, you haven't proven anything. Everything not prohibited is permitted.

 

[Skylar]

I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law.

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.

And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.

Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.

As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.

If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.

Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.

You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.

Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.

 

[Centinel]

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.

And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.

Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.

As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.

If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.

Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.

You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.

Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.

Secession is legal until proven illegal. Can you cite the law prohibiting secession?

 

[Centinel]

Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.

Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. Any power of congress that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that the States lack the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.

The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries.

And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.

Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:


I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison


There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.

As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.

If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it.

Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal.

You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment. You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic.

Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.

No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.

You cannot substantiate your claim.