US Constitution

[ReillyT]

Look, if you cannot state where the Constititoin specifically denies the states the right to secession, then the 10th amendment reserves that right to the states.

Saying so does not make it so.

The fact that you continue to dance around the subject, doing everything but provide that specific prohibition indicates that you understand this, and that you know there is no such provision.

This means you also know the SCotUS decision is crap.

The USSC decision may be poorly reasoned, but that is besides the point. You said that secession was legal, not merely that the USSC should have determined that secession was legal. As such, you are wrong.

By the way, what is wrong with referencing the preamble? It is a part of the Constitution. The USSC is (through Art. III and Marbury) empowered to interpret the Constitution. They did so. Why is an express provision necessary?

 

[ReillyT]

Look, if you cannot state where the Constititoin specifically denies the states the right to secession, then the 10th amendment reserves that right to the states.

The fact that you continue to dance around the subject, doing everything but provide that specific prohibition indicates that you understand this, and that you know there is no such provision.

This means you also know the SCotUS decision is crap.

I figure that I will throw you a bone and try to explain this very, very simply.

1. The USSC is empowered to interpret the Constitution. They are the final authority on what the Constitution allows and forbids. (Art. III and Marbury).

2. The USSC is not limited to interpreting the Constitution according to its express language. (see any number of USSC cases making this point).

3. Number 2 holds because of No. 1.

4. The USSC interpreted the Constitution (using the preamble and antecedent documents) to forbid secession (see White v. Texas).

Hence, secession is unlawful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Saying so does not make it so.

No, the 10th amendment makes it so.

The USSC decision may be poorly reasoned, but that is besides the point. You said that secession was legal, not merely that the USSC should have determined that secession was legal. As such, you are wrong.

None of that changes the fact that you understand that there is no such provision in the Constitition and that you know the decision is crap.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I figure that I will throw you a bone and try to explain this very, very simply.

Spare me.

 

[ReillyT]

No, the 10th amendment makes it so.


None of that changes the fact that you understand that there is no such provision in the Constitition and that you know the decision is crap.

The 10th Amendment only makes it so if the USSC says that the 10th Amendment makes it so. That is just how our government is set up. I agree that there is no specific provision in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting secession, but that is irrelevant. The decision may be weak, but that is also irrelevant.

You would be better served just arguing that secession shouldn't be unlawful. That is a good argument to have. The actual determination of its legality has already been made.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree that there is no specific provision in the Constitution explicitly prohibiting secession, but that is irrelevant.

That's sad, dude.

 

[ReillyT]

That's sad, dude.

Sad or not, that is the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[BrianH]

And you would be wrong. The Supreme Court ordered the Northern States to comply. And the Federal Government enforced it. Sorry if you can not force every sheriff in every town to just send escaped slaves back into slavery. That you think they should have been forced to is funny as hell. But wait, didn't you insist the war had nothing to do with slavery anyway?

And I did not catch your retraction on your lie about Brown and the Harper's Ferry Arsenal either. Could you point it out to me?

So let's get this straight...it's ok for certain invididuals in the North to do things against the law. But it's not ok for a minority of the South's pop. legally owning slaves?

Are you insisting that Harper's Ferry and John Brown was a lie??

I never said the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. If I had stated it, it was in a context that the war was not specifically fought over slavery, but over states right. If slavery was non-existent, and there had been another issue in it's place, the result would have been the same.

I said that slavery was not the primary reason, but an underlying factor.
The real reason behind the civil war involved state's rights. It's the same concept that Montana recently threatened to secede if the USSC ruled in favor of the firearm ban. State's rights.

 

[LOki]

And they did that 4 years after the North won the war, making it a moot point. What would the Supreme Court have ruled if the South had won?

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of the States--South Carolina might have legally left the Unoin, but they flinched.

And lost.

 

[BrianH]

The point is, looking at the Constitution in 1861 and reading it's law, secession is a power given to the state by the 10th Amendment. It's not prohibted in the Constitution, therefore, the powers not prohibited in the Constitution are reserved for the state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point is, looking at the Constitution in 1861 and reading it's law, secession is a power given to the state by the 10th Amendment. It's not prohibted in the Constitution, therefore, the powers not prohibited in the Constitution are reserved for the state.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Larkinn]

So, when the USSC rules in favor of the Bush Administration for cases involving the Iraq War, it has the force of law as well then too.

Yes. Why must you insist on stating the obvious?

 

[Larkinn]

If I'm being forced to do something I believe is wrong against my will by the Union Army, I'd say the South has a good case for the tyranny argument. In fact, sounds similar to an argument used 70 years before the Civil War in the Declaration of Independence.

Not quite, no. Did the South get a say in the Unions government? Yes.

And the South didn't believe the Union "was wrong", it just didn't feel like playing anymore.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So let's get this straight...it's ok for certain invididuals in the North to do things against the law. But it's not ok for a minority of the South's pop. legally owning slaves?

Are you insisting that Harper's Ferry and John Brown was a lie??

I never said the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. If I had stated it, it was in a context that the war was not specifically fought over slavery, but over states right. If slavery was non-existent, and there had been another issue in it's place, the result would have been the same.

I said that slavery was not the primary reason, but an underlying factor.
The real reason behind the civil war involved state's rights. It's the same concept that Montana recently threatened to secede if the USSC ruled in favor of the firearm ban. State's rights.

You made the claim that John Brown was supported by the Government and allowed to take the armory and nothing was done while he raised an army. A straight UP LIE. In fact Col Lee lead a Union force and stormed the Armory, retook and killed or captured all the men that seized, these men were tried found guilty and executed as far as I recall.

Now before we get some bullshit lecture on how Lee was a confederate General, at the time of Harper Ferry he was a Col in the US Army. Leading US troops, dispatched by the Government.

 

[BrianH]

Not quite, no. Did the South get a say in the Unions government? Yes.

And the South didn't believe the Union "was wrong", it just didn't feel like playing anymore.

It's not as simple as not wanting or not wanting to "play". You've said this several times and it is an uneducated argument involving no historical background.

 

[BrianH]

You made the claim that John Brown was supported by the Government and allowed to take the armory and nothing was done while he raised an army. A straight UP LIE. In fact Col Lee lead a Union force and stormed the Armory, retook and killed or captured all the men that seized, these men were tried found guilty and executed as far as I recall.

Now before we get some bullshit lecture on how Lee was a confederate General, at the time of Harper Ferry he was a Col in the US Army. Leading US troops, dispatched by the Government.

Um...go back and read the post. I never said the government supported him. I said he used government arms from a federal armory. When I say the North, that means everyone in the North, not just the government...but I'm sure you knew that. Get your discussion strait.

 

[BrianH]

"Not only did the North commit several acts of agressions on the South, such as the Harper's Ferry incident with John Brown. (Attempted Armed revolution of slaves using federal arms....I wonder what would have happened if the slaves had revolted and won....this would have been an African nation possibly, and the UNion would have been kickin themselves in the ass.)"

"As far as agression of the South against the North....Harper's Ferry was an agression against the South by Northern Republicans during the Buchanan admin"

Here's two of my posts regarding Harper's Ferry. Do you see anything about support from the Government??? Look Closely....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Not only did the North commit several acts of agressions on the South, such as the Harper's Ferry incident with John Brown. (Attempted Armed revolution of slaves using federal arms....I wonder what would have happened if the slaves had revolted and won....this would have been an African nation possibly, and the UNion would have been kickin themselves in the ass.)"

"As far as agression of the South against the North....Harper's Ferry was an agression against the South by Northern Republicans during the Buchanan admin"

Here's two of my posts regarding Harper's Ferry. Do you see anything about support from the Government??? Look Closely....

Sure thing Brown was a retard and was opposed by the Government and was properly killed by said Government. So the "north" is responsible if Joe Schmuck attacks someone, but the South is innocent if South Carolina attacks and seizes a federal Fort? Got ya, sure thing. Your intent is clear, to blame the entire north and Lincoln for the actions of mad men.

You are of course aware that Lincoln STATED he would take no action against the South, sponsor no bills against slavery as President? And that as President he had no power to do anything about Slavery anyway?

 

[BrianH]

Sure thing Brown was a retard and was opposed by the Government and was properly killed by said Government. So the "north" is responsible if Joe Schmuck attacks someone, but the South is innocent if South Carolina attacks and seizes a federal Fort? Got ya, sure thing. Your intent is clear, to blame the entire north and Lincoln for the actions of mad men.

You are of course aware that Lincoln STATED he would take no action against the South, sponsor no bills against slavery as President? And that as President he had no power to do anything about Slavery anyway?

Yeah that's right, back-peddle your ass back to the other side of the line. You made an assinine accusation that I said the Government supported Harper's Ferry and John Brown, and you just ate your words on it.

Now you're attempt to put words in my mouth, or type on my post (whichever you perfer). The South gave them plenty of opportunities to leave. They legall seceded, and went through the correct measures to give the North time to get out of the Fort. The North's arrogance and "Supreme" mind-set is what started that crap.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah that's right, back-peddle your ass back to the other side of the line. You made an assinine accusation that I said the Government supported Harper's Ferry and John Brown, and you just ate your words on it.

Now you're attempt to put words in my mouth, or type on my post (whichever you perfer). The South gave them plenty of opportunities to leave. They legall seceded, and went through the correct measures to give the North time to get out of the Fort. The North's arrogance and "Supreme" mind-set is what started that crap.

Your intent was clear, you are attempting to claim the "north" and Lincoln were to blame for and allowed Brown to act. A simple straight forward lie. Claiming the Republican party was responsible for Brown is a hoot indeed, intended to do one thing, taint Lincoln and the entire north. Do tell us some more whoppers about how the North "invaded" the South because private citizens did something and were put down BY THE FEDERAL Government.