Was seccession illegal?

[TNHarley]

The premise of the Constitution is that BY majority agreement things are done, requiring a majority of States to decide another State can leave the Union per the Supreme Court decision. A State does not have the sole power to determine it's status in the Union never has never will. The Constitution is clear on that as well as what type Government will be permitted to individual States with in the Union.

where does it say that at? article 4?

 

[Fiero425]

Alaska and Texas are still trying believe it or not! Idiots!

I would think Alaska and Texas are really happy now that RINO Trump is in charge at The White House and not Hillary.

Pelosi and Schumer have each been neutered and spayed for now as well.

Jeeze this is practically a GOP pipe dream for 2016 - 2018 at least.

You say "dream," the rest of us say "NIGHTMARE!" What will the excuses be when it all circles the drain? So far you have the POTUS and all of Congress and nothing's passed! What happened to "all we need now is to elect a Republican to the WH?" I think maybe a P.O. has been renamed over and above EO's signed that have been smacked down by the courts!

 

[danielpalos]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Of course it was illegal; we have a Second Amendment.

 

[TNHarley]

yiostheoy
Figured you might want to try being wrong again

Well TNHarley you're obviously not too smart nor very well read but you are correct that I have read the right answer to your childish impertinent query, motorcycle boy.

How is discussing history childish? Childish is you going around and STFUing everything you see from 8 years ago.
What a stupid thing to say.

Discussing history is not childish.

YOU are childish TNHarley .

You don't seem to read very much if at all.

If you are so well read, why cant you offer any substance to my OP? Are you at a loss for words?
If you are just going to troll, then leave. I thought I might could get some substance out of you.

I'm not all that well read -- certainly not as much as Neil Gorsuch.

But obviously more than you are TNHarley .

yea you make that VERY obvious. You didn't even know when the states seceded. Give me a break

 

[TNHarley]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Of course it was illegal; we have a Second Amendment.

what?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

 

[Timmy]

The con explains how we add states . that's obviously a fed power on who's in and out.

 

[TNHarley]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

no it doesn't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does and the Supreme Court case settles it.

 

[TNHarley]

The document that formed the US under the Constitution requires a 3/4th's? vote there for to leave requires a vote of all effected States. The TYPE of Government allowed a State is clearly defined in the Body of the Constitution thus reaffirming that the Constitution does not grant to a single State the right nor power to leave with out permission.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does and the Supreme Court case settles it.

Principle of legality. The law wasn't clear.
The SC didn't say anything about consent of the states until texas vs white.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.

 

[TNHarley]

what about the tenth amendment?
The constitution doesn't mention secession. Article 4 mentions adding new states but isn't sufficient enough
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.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution requires a majority vote and the Supreme Court upheld that. Pretty simple concept.

Sure, but it doesn't apply to this. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It clearly establishes that decisions by the States in regards what is and is not in the Union is controlled by Congress.

 

[danielpalos]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Of course it was illegal; we have a Second Amendment.

what?

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[TNHarley]

That ruling could not hold precedence over something done beforehand without a law that already made secession illegal, a previous SC ruling or clear text in the COTUS.

 

[TNHarley]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Of course it was illegal; we have a Second Amendment.

what?

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, regardless of all of the other ones.

lol ok

 

[bendog]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

The only way it could have been legal is if the State's (colonies) reserved some right. In the Artlcles of Confederation, the Union was described as in perpetuity. The constitution says "in order to form a more perfect union."

I go with the view that the states had no reason to think they were free to leave once in. There were restrictions on the ability of the feds to militarily coerce states. There was provision for states to divide. The whole notion of the revolution is that we must all hang together because we shall surely hang separately.

But the compromise on slavery fell apart. There would be more free than slave states. So, imo, war was inevitable. The economies of slavery would not be protected, and tariffs would have killed the cotton trade.

That said, I'm still waiting for the Yankee thieving bastards to pay for the propery. Just a foreshadowing of the cheating of the Focking Cheat NE Patriots

 

[OKTexas]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

You need to read more TNHarley .

Get a copy of US Grant's memoirs and in the epilogue he tells you that states have no right to secede and that the Union has the right to preserve itself.

So you're saiying Grant thought all the foundational principles contained in the Declaration Of Independence were just so much bullshit. That a free people have no right to govern themselves or to sever bonds that they find untenable.

 

[yiostheoy]

Article VII (Article 7 - Ratification)
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

(Preamble)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
Section 1
1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows ...

8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2
1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States ...