Was seccession illegal?

[danielpalos]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

The power to admit is not the power to exclude. You are "reading too much into it".

 

[Correll]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

The power to admit is not the power to exclude. You are "reading too much into it".

Um, if it is your job to choose which states to ADMIT, then you are by definition also, choosing which states to NOT admit, or exclude.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Any law that the citizenry is, in large measure, unwilling to obey is a moot law, most especially if one of the modes of expressed disobedience is war. Sure, one can have an abstract discussion about it, but where's that discussion supposed to go, regardless of its resolution? If one or several states secede from the union, there're really only two options the union has for dealing with it: allow them to do so and move on, or forcibly return them to the union. Secession is an act, not mere talk and threats. Once that act is undertaken, the realm of options for what to do about it narrow to a binary set.

You're arguing enforcement. What steps the government can take to enforce the law, the ultimate being military force.

??? Of course, I am. In the matter of succession, there's nothing else worth talking about, aside, from the theoretical/abstract discussion to which I earlier referred. One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does.

If one isn't of a mind to enforce a law, and the citizenry not of a mind to see it enforced or obey it, then the law in question is pointless. The law itself is not the end; it is a means to achieving an end or maintaining an existentiality, be it for moral/ethical or efficiency reasons. Once that end or end state has been destroyed, it becomes extraneous whether there is or was a law prohibiting the actions that effected the abridgement of the union.

As goes the matter of succession, if the citizens of one or several states determine to withdraw from the union, it's not as though the union, after the secession and prior to enforcing any law prohibiting secession, has jurisdiction to prosecute the people who seceded, and if the union opts to let the secession stand, again, it has no jurisdiction in the newly created (by secession) nation whereby the remaining union can enforce any law it has that prohibits secession.

People joke about the absurdity of laws proscribing certain boudoir behaviors. A law against secession is even more absurd.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes it was illegal. The end.

 

[radical right]

\
That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

Obviously you know nothing about constitutional law. The constituion allows itself to be amended, and the amendments take prescience over anything in the main body. In short, the bill of rights overrides the main body.

And in answer to your enumeration point, look at the income tax and the 16th amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

\
That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

Obviously you know nothing about constitutional law. The constituion allows itself to be amended, and the amendments take prescience over anything in the main body. In short, the bill of rights overrides the main body.

That doesn't make them enumerated powers, moron.

And in answer to your enumeration point, look at the income tax and the 16th amendment.

Yeah, that is a power of the federal government. The rest of the BOR is restrictions on government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

The amendments to the Constitution are every bit as much a part of the Constution as are what you call the 'main body'.

 

[radical right]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

The amendments to the Constitution are every bit as much a part of the Constution as are what you call the 'main body'.

They aren't enumerated powers, moron. How many different ways do I have to explain that before it penetrates the skulls of snowflakes?

 

[bripat9643]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

The violence was all perpetrated by Lincoln, not the seceding states. Nothing in the Constitution covers secession. As you have already admitted, that makes it perfectly legal for states to take such an action.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

The amendments to the Constitution are every bit as much a part of the Constution as are what you call the 'main body'.

They aren't enumerated powers, moron. How many different ways do I have to explain that before it penetrates the skulls of snowflakes?

The 2nd AMENDMENT is an amendtment.

 

[bripat9643]

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

The amendments to the Constitution are every bit as much a part of the Constution as are what you call the 'main body'.

They aren't enumerated powers, moron. How many different ways do I have to explain that before it penetrates the skulls of snowflakes?

The 2nd AMENDMENT is an amendtment.

And it isn't a power of the federal government. It's a restriction on the government.

 

[radical right]

And in answer to your enumeration point, look at the income tax and the 16th amendment.

Yeah, that is a power of the federal government. The rest of the BOR is restrictions on government.

Actually that wasn't an enumerated power of the government, until it was added by amendment to the constitution, making it an enumerated power. See how that works?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

The violence was all perpetrated by Lincoln, not the seceding states. Nothing in the Constitution covers secession. As you have already admitted, that makes it perfectly legal for states to take such an action.

Wrong. The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession because it binds the states to the legal supremacy of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

And in answer to your enumeration point, look at the income tax and the 16th amendment.

Yeah, that is a power of the federal government. The rest of the BOR is restrictions on government.

Actually that wasn't an enumerated power of the government, until it was added by amendment to the constitution, making it an enumerated power. See how that works?

So what "power" does the First Amendment give the government?

 

[bripat9643]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

The violence was all perpetrated by Lincoln, not the seceding states. Nothing in the Constitution covers secession. As you have already admitted, that makes it perfectly legal for states to take such an action.

Wrong. The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession because it binds the states to the legal supremacy of the Constitution.

Horseshit. That's a fantasy, not a legal fact.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

Well, do you realize what you are effectively proposing? That the abridged union send troops to round up every citizen in the new nation? Maybe round them up and then deport them back to their new nation? That's absurd to think of doing.

It's one thing to have a law and want to enforce it, but in doing so, especially re: secession, the practical exigencies obviate the viability of all "usual" courses of law enforcement. That's why I wrote earlier that discussions about legal theory are all well and good, but any and every law has to be practically enforceable for it to have any merit. As goes the prohibition against secession, fine it's on the books, but that's as far as one can practically take it, as a suggestion that one, one's state, will heed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

The amendments to the Constitution are every bit as much a part of the Constution as are what you call the 'main body'.

They aren't enumerated powers, moron. How many different ways do I have to explain that before it penetrates the skulls of snowflakes?

The 2nd AMENDMENT is an amendtment.

And it isn't a power of the federal government. It's a restriction on the government.

It is a power of the federal government. It's the power of the federal government to override the states on how they might want to regulate firearms.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can have all the discussion one wants to have about secession's legal theory and foundations, but secession is one act whereof once it's undertaken, whatever ends someone though such a law might have fostered no longer matter; the illegality or legality of seceding whether it was illegal or not is made moot by the act of seceding, that is by doing the very thing an anti-secession law prohibits. Few behaviors have that quality, but succession most certainly does..

Seccession by purely non-violent means would still be illegal. Seccession by violent means is treason. And like bringing a fugitive to justice they have to first be brought back into the jurisdiction by any means necessary.

As I mentioned, Article 4 section 3 covers entry and exit of states from the union. Giving that power to congress.

The violence was all perpetrated by Lincoln, not the seceding states. Nothing in the Constitution covers secession. As you have already admitted, that makes it perfectly legal for states to take such an action.

Wrong. The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession because it binds the states to the legal supremacy of the Constitution.

Horseshit. That's a fantasy, not a legal fact.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?

The amendments to the Constitution are every bit as much a part of the Constution as are what you call the 'main body'.

They aren't enumerated powers, moron. How many different ways do I have to explain that before it penetrates the skulls of snowflakes?

The 2nd AMENDMENT is an amendtment.

And it isn't a power of the federal government. It's a restriction on the government.

It is a power of the federal government. It's the power of the federal government to override the states on how they might want to regulate firearms.

Nope. There is no enumerated power to prevent states from saying "fooey on the federal government."