Was seccession illegal?

[radical right]

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

Even more so. The 12th, 14th, 20th and 22nd amendment actually nullified parts of the 'main body'

 

[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.

Prove it.

I don't have to. You have to prove your claim. Stamping your foot and insisting over and over that it's true isn't proof. That's merely petulance.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Even more so. The 12th, 14th, 20th and 22nd amendment actually nullified parts of the 'main body'

Which amendment gave the federal government the power to prevent secession?

 

[radical right]

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.

Read article 4 section 3 (clause 1 and clause 2)

Article 4

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.

 

[radical right]

Which amendment gave the federal government the power to prevent secession?

That would include eminent domain. A power of government inherent in sovereignty.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Read article 4 section 3 (clause 1 and clause 2)

Article 4

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.

Nope, nothing about secession there.

 

[bripat9643]

Which amendment gave the federal government the power to prevent secession?

That would include eminent domain. A power of government inherent in sovereignty.

Eminent domain is not an amendment. It's an enumerated power.

 

[radical right]

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.

Read article 4 section 3 (clause 1 and clause 2)

Article 4

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.

Nope, nothing about secession there.

Good of you to notice. Which means states don't have that right. But it does give congress the power to "dispose" of states, which can only mean kicking them out of the union.

 

[radical right]

Eminent domain is not an amendment. It's an enumerated power.

It's not an enumerated power, it's a result of sovereignty. Same with executive, legislative and judicial powers. The constitution doesn't enumerate those powers, but merely dictates who has those sovereign powers.

The enumeration of legislative powers, limits the legislative power of congress to just those things.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

Read article 4 section 3 (clause 1 and clause 2)

Article 4

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.

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.

As that sentence is written and punctuated, "dispose of and make" pertains to "Rules and Regulations," not to "Territory or other Property. To write the sentence so that "dispose of and make" pertains to "Territory and Property, it'd need to be written as follows using the "parenthetical" comma:

"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...."​

Perhaps basic English grammar rules that define the meanings associated with commas differed in the late 1700s from what they are now. I really am not a linguistic historian, so I don't know. I do know quite well what to make of phrases and clauses set off (or not) by commas given the current standards for their usage in English. FWIW, those very same standards, except for with numbers, apply also to Spanish, French, and even to Mandarin. Based on that, I suspect the structural purpose, thus the meaning correlate of the comma, is likely to be both universal and consistent since that mark's invention. (Edit: But maybe not....I also don't know when the "parenthetical" use of the comma was first accepted.)

I'm aware that spellings of certain words have changes, but a change in the meanings tied to punctuation marks is a much broader genre of difference -- likely something above the dialect level and below the language level -- than is mere spelling.

 

[radical right]

As that sentence is written and punctuated, "dispose of and make" pertains to "Rules and Regulations," not to "Territory or other Property. To write the sentence so that "dispose of and make" pertains to "Territory and Property, it'd need to be written as follows:

"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...."​

Perhaps basic English grammar rules that define the meanings associated with commas differed in the late 1700s from what they are now. I really am not a linguistic historian, so I don't know. I do know quite well what to make of phrases and clauses set off by commas given the current standards for its usage in English. FWIW, those very same standards, except for with numbers, apply also to Spanish, French, and even to Mandarin. Based on that, I suspect the structural purpose, thus the meaning correlate of the comma, is likely to be both universal and enduring since that mark's invention.

I'm aware that spellings of certain words have changes, but a change in the meanings tied to punctuation marks is a much broader genre of difference -- likely something above the dialect level and below the language level -- than is mere spelling.

Let's analyze:

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;

Q) Who has the power? - Answer Congress
Q) What powers? - Answer to dispose of, AND to make rules and regulations
Q) What are subject to those powers = Answer - All territories and US properties.

 

[bripat9643]

As that sentence is written and punctuated, "dispose of and make" pertains to "Rules and Regulations," not to "Territory or other Property. To write the sentence so that "dispose of and make" pertains to "Territory and Property, it'd need to be written as follows:

"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...."​

Perhaps basic English grammar rules that define the meanings associated with commas differed in the late 1700s from what they are now. I really am not a linguistic historian, so I don't know. I do know quite well what to make of phrases and clauses set off by commas given the current standards for its usage in English. FWIW, those very same standards, except for with numbers, apply also to Spanish, French, and even to Mandarin. Based on that, I suspect the structural purpose, thus the meaning correlate of the comma, is likely to be both universal and enduring since that mark's invention.

I'm aware that spellings of certain words have changes, but a change in the meanings tied to punctuation marks is a much broader genre of difference -- likely something above the dialect level and below the language level -- than is mere spelling.

Let's analyze:

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;

Q) Who has the power? - Answer Congress
Q) What powers? - Answer to dispose of, AND to make rules and regulations
Q) What are subject to those powers = Answer - All territories and US properties.

A state is not a "territory" or "property" of the United States.

FAIL!

 

[radical right]

A state is not a "territory" or "property" of the United States.

FAIL!

NOPE !!!

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;

 

[usmbguest5318]

As that sentence is written and punctuated, "dispose of and make" pertains to "Rules and Regulations," not to "Territory or other Property. To write the sentence so that "dispose of and make" pertains to "Territory and Property, it'd need to be written as follows:

"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...."​

Perhaps basic English grammar rules that define the meanings associated with commas differed in the late 1700s from what they are now. I really am not a linguistic historian, so I don't know. I do know quite well what to make of phrases and clauses set off by commas given the current standards for its usage in English. FWIW, those very same standards, except for with numbers, apply also to Spanish, French, and even to Mandarin. Based on that, I suspect the structural purpose, thus the meaning correlate of the comma, is likely to be both universal and enduring since that mark's invention.

I'm aware that spellings of certain words have changes, but a change in the meanings tied to punctuation marks is a much broader genre of difference -- likely something above the dialect level and below the language level -- than is mere spelling.

Let's analyze:

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;

Q) Who has the power? - Answer Congress
Q) What powers? - Answer to dispose of, AND to make rules and regulations
Q) What are subject to those powers = Answer - All territories and US properties.

Actually, "all territories and U.S. properties" are what the rules and regulation pertain to, not the powers. Were the sentence written I noted above, the direct object of both "dispose of" and "make" would indeed be " all territories and U.S. properties. But the sentence is not written that way; thus the noun, "rules and regulations" is the direct object of the verbs "dispose of and make." The parenthetical comma (when it's used) is what tells the reader not to construe the first appearing noun (or set of nouns) after the verb(s) as the direct object of those verbs. The sentence, as written, does not have parenthetical commas, so the first appearing noun is the direct object of the verbs.

I tried to be polite and merely explain how it is that the punctuation of that sentence does not support the interpretation you've made of it. I don't really care "get ugly" about it, but I'm not of a mind to debate the way the way English and its punctuation works. I am going to kindly suggest that you review how commas work, specifically the meaning associated with the parenthetical comma, along with the guidelines for determining what is and is not the direct object of a verb. Imbuing learners of English with a solid understanding of those concepts, as part of teaching reading comprehension skills, is why in grammar school we diagrammed sentences. Punctuation matters, particularly in legal documents.

 

[bripat9643]

A state is not a "territory" or "property" of the United States.

FAIL!

NOPE !!!

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.

26 CFR 1.956-2 - Definition of United States property.
(i) Tangible property (real or personal) located in the United States;

That doesn't support your claim, moron.

 

[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".

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.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

 

[radical right]

Actually, "all territories and U.S. properties" are what the rules and regulation pertain to, not the powers.

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;

What is the subject that the power to dispose pertains to?

You can't be arguing congress has a power, without there being an actual subject for that power.

Every verb needs a subject. What is the subject of the power to dispose?

 

[radical right]

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

True. That power to "dispose" is in the second clause of article 4 section 3

 

[Correll]

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.

If you want to quibble, the power to exclude is not the power to expulse.

Pointing out that the power to ADMIT, is also the power to NOT admit is hardly quibbling.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, "all territories and U.S. properties" are what the rules and regulation pertain to, not the powers.

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;

What is the subject that the power to dispose pertains to?

You can't be arguing congress has a power, without there being an actual subject for that power.

Every verb needs a subject. What is the subject of the power to dispose?

Special pleading is still a fallacy. Why not include the entire article and section.