Where do you stand on State succession?

[SwimExpert]

The articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was ratified. If it wasn't null and void, then how could the Constitution be valid? The two documents conflict with each other.

Show me where in the constitution it says that the United States was dissolved.

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution can't both be valid simultaneously, now can they? You didn't answer that question.

Seems to work for the bible.

The constitution did not dissolve the United States. In fact, the constitution's opening affirms that it is a constitution for the United States that already existed. That union was a perpetual union. The constitution created a new structure of government for the United States. It did not dissolve the United States and create a new union. Just because the old structure of federal government of the United States was abandoned does not mean that the United States ceased to exist. It merely adopted a new structure of government.

 

[SwimExpert]

And the union wasn't perpetual, it was discontinued for four years.

Show me one document where the United States was dissolved.

 

[Iceman]

And the union wasn't perpetual, it was discontinued for four years.

Show me one document where the United States was dissolved.

The Civil War, 11 states left, and other than that, many states have joined over time. It isn't perpetual. And it won't last forever, no country has. Perpetual means never ending or changing. It has changed, and it won't last forever.

 

[Iceman]

And you haven't answered my question. Why should anyone care about the full title of the Articles of Confederation? So what?

 

[SwimExpert]

The US won't last forever.

Probably not. That does not have any bearing here. Take corporations for example. When incorporated, they exist perpetually. They can, of their own accord, dissolve and cease to exist. But no portion of the corporation can simply decide it's going to be it's own, separate corporation. Not unilaterally.

And who cares what the title of the Articles of Confederation is? It means nothing. The title of some dead document didn't and doesn't stop people from seceding evidently.

It's not just a title. The AOC created a perpetual union, which the states entered into. True, nothing can stop people from trying to secede. But a state can only be successful when doing so with the consent of the states, or through revolution. Do you really think that you can put up a fence around your yard and mail a letter to Congress saying that you're seceding, and that you're magically your own country?

 

[SwimExpert]

And the union wasn't perpetual, it was discontinued for four years.

Show me one document where the United States was dissolved.

The Civil War, 11 states left, and other than that, many states have joined over time. It isn't perpetual. And it won't last forever, no country has. Perpetual means never ending or changing. It has changed, and it won't last forever.

1. The Civil War is not a document.
2. They did not secede. They tried, but they failed.
3. That has nothing to do with the United States dissolving and a new United States forming with the constitution.

 

[Iceman]

The US won't last forever.

Probably not. That does not have any bearing here. Take corporations for example. When incorporated, they exist perpetually. They can, of their own accord, dissolve and cease to exist. But no portion of the corporation can simply decide it's going to be it's own, separate corporation. Not unilaterally.

And who cares what the title of the Articles of Confederation is? It means nothing. The title of some dead document didn't and doesn't stop people from seceding evidently.

It's not just a title. The AOC created a perpetual union, which the states entered into. True, nothing can stop people from trying to secede. But a state can only be successful when doing so with the consent of the states, or through revolution. Do you really think that you can put up a fence around your yard and mail a letter to Congress saying that you're seceding, and that you're magically your own country?

The US isn't a corporation. And secession movements succeed all the time, they have throughout history. It doesn't matter if "they can't". They just do it.

And a corporation is made of shareholders, you can sell your share whenever you want. You aren't obligated to hold onto those shares forever.

That is a stupid comparison.

The AOC created nothing, it has no legal binding, the title of a discontinued document has no legal binding.

And you have yet to answer this question. Even if it had legal binding, so what?

 

[Iceman]

Show me one document where the United States was dissolved.

The Civil War, 11 states left, and other than that, many states have joined over time. It isn't perpetual. And it won't last forever, no country has. Perpetual means never ending or changing. It has changed, and it won't last forever.

1. The Civil War is not a document.
2. They did not secede. They tried, but they failed.
3. That has nothing to do with the United States dissolving and a new United States forming with the constitution.

1. I don't care, I am not going to link to articles of secession of the various states.

2. Yes they did, they were brought back in. That was the whole point of the Civil War. The states of the Confederacy seceded, the United States brought them back into the Union.

3. No one said the United States dissolved. But it isn't perpetual, by definition.

 

[SwimExpert]

The US isn't a corporation.

A group join together to form a distinct legal entity. Sounds like the Union to me.

And secession movements succeed all the time, they have throughout history. It doesn't matter if "they can't". They just do it.

And, what's your point? People smoke weed all the time. Doesn't make it legal.

And a corporation is made of shareholders, you can sell your share whenever you want. You aren't obligated to hold onto those shares forever.

You clearly did not get the point. Just because an entity might one day no longer exist does not mean that it is not perpetual.

The AOC created nothing

You are sadly mistaken. The AOC created the United States of America.

it has no legal binding, the title of a discontinued document has no legal binding.

I've already told you, we're not talking about a title. We're talking about the very action that created the United States of America.

And you have yet to answer this question. Even if it had legal binding, so what?

There are two things which remain relevant today. The first is the name of the union, the United States of America. The second is that the union is perpetual.

 

[SwimExpert]

1. I don't care

That's a very convincing argument!

2. Yes they did, they were brought back in. That was the whole point of the Civil War. The states of the Confederacy seceded, the United States brought them back into the Union.

The point of the Civil War was that the south took up armed rebellion. In any event, you should do a google search for Texas v. White.

3. No one said the United States dissolved. But it isn't perpetual, by definition.

The United States of America was first brought into existence with the adoption of the Article of Confederation. The Articles established a perpetual union. If that United States was not dissolved, than the current United States under the current constitution is the same union. And therefore, is perpetual. Therefore, no state has a unilateral right to secede from the union. A state can only secede with the consent of the states, or through revolution.

 

[Iceman]

The US isn't a corporation.

A group join together to form a distinct legal entity. Sounds like the Union to me.

And secession movements succeed all the time, they have throughout history. It doesn't matter if "they can't". They just do it.

And, what's your point? People smoke weed all the time. Doesn't make it legal.



You clearly did not get the point. Just because an entity might one day no longer exist does not mean that it is not perpetual.





You are sadly mistaken. The AOC created the United States of America.

it has no legal binding, the title of a discontinued document has no legal binding.

I've already told you, we're not talking about a title. We're talking about the very action that created the United States of America.

And you have yet to answer this question. Even if it had legal binding, so what?

There are two things which remain relevant today. The first is the name of the union, the United States of America. The second is that the union is perpetual.

Doesn't sound like one to me. Provide proof the US is a Corporation.

I smoke weed, and where I am at, it is legal. I don't care either way. Same with secession, I don't care whether it is legal or not, nor do successful secession movements, they just do it. If the whole point is to create a new country with a new legal system, who gives a shit if you are breaking the laws of the government you are seceding from?

No, the US won't exist someday, there is no maybe involved.

The title of the AOC means nothing legally, the AOC was a dead document by the time of the civil war, and had no legal binding. The title of a dead document has no legal binding.

Neither of those two things aren't relevant to me. I don't hold much stock in the name of this country, or the title of some dead legal document, and if those are the foundations of your loyalty and patriotism in the government, that is pretty pathetic. No wonder fewer and fewer people want to die for the US, there is so little to die for.

 

[Iceman]

1. I don't care

That's a very convincing argument!

2. Yes they did, they were brought back in. That was the whole point of the Civil War. The states of the Confederacy seceded, the United States brought them back into the Union.

The point of the Civil War was that the south took up armed rebellion. In any event, you should do a google search for Texas v. White.

3. No one said the United States dissolved. But it isn't perpetual, by definition.

The United States of America was first brought into existence with the adoption of the Article of Confederation. The Articles established a perpetual union. If that United States was not dissolved, than the current United States under the current constitution is the same union. And therefore, is perpetual. Therefore, no state has a unilateral right to secede from the union. A state can only secede with the consent of the states, or through revolution.

1.No one is arguing if the US is dissolved. So I don't care to address your argument. The US is not perpetual, it has changed and it does have an end.

2. You just repeated what I said.

3. No it isn't, look up the definition of perpetual. Also, I never talked about rights. Might is the only right.

 

[SwimExpert]

Doesn't sound like one to me. Provide proof the US is a Corporation.

I never said the US was a corporation.

I smoke weed

Yeah, I'm starting to get that vibe.

I don't care either way. Same with secession, I don't care whether it is legal or not, nor do successful secession movements, they just do it.

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "Do not fuck the system. Play the system, work the system, massage the system. But you do NOT fuck the system because the system will fuck you right back."

When discussing whether secession is legal, "I don't care if it's legal" is not a meaningful position. Your disregard does not negate illegality.

No, the US won't exist someday, there is no maybe involved.

Yes, we've already been over this. It does not matter if the US ceases to exist one day. That has no bearing on anything here.

The title of the AOC means nothing legally, the AOC was a dead document by the time of the civil war, and had no legal binding. The title of a dead document has no legal binding.

Neither of those two things aren't relevant to me. I don't hold much stock in the name of this country, or the title of some dead legal document, and if those are the foundations of your loyalty and patriotism in the government, that is pretty pathetic. No wonder fewer and fewer people want to die for the US, there is so little to die for.

Listen, I'm tired of this. You have explicitly stated several times already that you simply don't care if something doesn't agree with your position. Which shows that you are both uneducated and ignorant. The ridiculous thing is that you're not even arguing a position where this is any actual question involved. Let me give you a few facts.

1. The United States of America is a perpetual union.
2. The "perpetual union" clause of the AOC continues to be binding today.
3. No state has a unilateral right to secede from the union. They can only do so through consent of the states, or through revolution.
4. A failed revolution is not a successful secession.

You can ignore this if you wish. But denial of these facts is nothing short of being uneducated and ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede?

Here:

Texas v. White (1869).

ROFL! You mean the court Lincoln packed with his sycophants said it was illegal?

Furthermore, I asked where does the Constitution say it, not what some political hacks had to say on the subject.

You have to be a truly brainwashed drone to believe that decision is valid.

In your ignorant, irrelevant opinion.

As a fact of law, however, you are wrong as usual.

Otherwise, cite the case where Texas v. White was overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and in this case it is indeed un-Constitutional for a single state to ‘secede’ from the Union.

To argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.

 

[Iceman]

Doesn't sound like one to me. Provide proof the US is a Corporation.

I never said the US was a corporation.

I smoke weed

Yeah, I'm starting to get that vibe.



Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "Do not fuck the system. Play the system, work the system, massage the system. But you do NOT fuck the system because the system will fuck you right back."

When discussing whether secession is legal, "I don't care if it's legal" is not a meaningful position. Your disregard does not negate illegality.

No, the US won't exist someday, there is no maybe involved.

Yes, we've already been over this. It does not matter if the US ceases to exist one day. That has no bearing on anything here.

The title of the AOC means nothing legally, the AOC was a dead document by the time of the civil war, and had no legal binding. The title of a dead document has no legal binding.

Neither of those two things aren't relevant to me. I don't hold much stock in the name of this country, or the title of some dead legal document, and if those are the foundations of your loyalty and patriotism in the government, that is pretty pathetic. No wonder fewer and fewer people want to die for the US, there is so little to die for.

Listen, I'm tired of this. You have explicitly stated several times already that you simply don't care if something doesn't agree with your position. Which shows that you are both uneducated and ignorant. The ridiculous thing is that you're not even arguing a position where this is any actual question involved. Let me give you a few facts.

1. The United States of America is a perpetual union.
2. The "perpetual union" clause of the AOC continues to be binding today.
3. No state has a unilateral right to secede from the union. They can only do so through consent of the states, or through revolution.
4. A failed revolution is not a successful secession.

You can ignore this if you wish. But denial of these facts is nothing short of being uneducated and ignorant.

Then why did you compare it to one? Well, whatever, we agree, it isn't a Corporation. Leave it at that.


I am not discussing whether it is legal, I don't care. And you have yet to show where it is illegal even. It is just a silly debate in my opinion, it is pedantic. When you fight to form your own country, it isn't like you ask for the permission of the government you are trying to break away from. That defeats the whole purpose, you reject their authority, you want to create your own legal authority.

I am more of a live and let live type. I think people that don't support secession and allowing people to mind their own business are busybodies and shiteaters that are my enemies.

Talking about the US certainly not existing forever has bearing. Those who wrote the AOC were simply incorrect in saying the US is perpetual. They meant it in more of a symbolic way more likely. But the US won't last forever, and it has changed, thus, it isn't perpetual.

1. Read a dictionary, look up perpetual.

2. The AOC has no legal binding, nor does it title, titles of legal documents hold no legal binding, especially titles of dead documents.

3. I agree, rights don't exist. But you have yet to show secession is illegal within the context of the US. Not that I care, but you should back up your points.

4. I agree, whoever said the Confederacy succeeded? I didn't realize this was a point of argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

Ignorant nonsense.

More Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any time in our Nation’s history; and the freedom and liberty afforded to all Americans continues to be fostered by the Constitution and its case law as gay and transgender Americans move toward the realization of their comprehensive civil rights.

There is reason to be optimistic, as the best America is yet to come.

But the inane and unwarranted pessimism experienced by you and others on the fearful reactionary right is understandable, given your disdain for diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty that you incorrectly perceive for some bizarre reason as a ‘threat.’

 

[bripat9643]

Here:

Texas v. White (1869).

ROFL! You mean the court Lincoln packed with his sycophants said it was illegal?

Furthermore, I asked where does the Constitution say it, not what some political hacks had to say on the subject.

You have to be a truly brainwashed drone to believe that decision is valid.

In your ignorant, irrelevant opinion.

As a fact of law, however, you are wrong as usual.

Many facts of law are not facts in reality.

Otherwise, cite the case where Texas v. White was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Why would I bother? I can read the Constitution for myself. Whatever some hand picked political hack has to say about it may be a "fact of law," but it's not necessarily a fact.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and in this case it is indeed un-Constitutional for a single state to ‘secede’ from the Union.

To argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy.[/

That's one of those "facts of law" that are not facts. The Constitution is an actual document written on a piece of vellum that anyone can go to the National Archives and read for himself. When I read the document, I don't see any reference to secession. Therefore, nothing in the document makes secession illegal. It's as simple as that. It's a fact of reality, even if it isn't a "fact of law."

 

[thanatos144]

wrong, Lincoln's decision to fight the secession caused thousands to die.

No that would be the confederate traitors attacking Sumter because Lincoln didn't want slavery in the new territories...I know faced with the truth about this you will deny it and close your eyes because you have to ignore that slavery was the whole reason the south seceded in the first place and that it was a evil government that the world is better off without.

the issue was state's rights, slavery was blamed because it would stir up passions on both sides.

The civil war was NOT fought over slavery, it was fought over states rights and whether the federal govt could dictate to the states. The feds won and look what we have today----------17 trillion in debt, millionaire senators, a welfare state, loss of individual freedoms, and incompetent leaders.

yeah, the feds won but the people lost. Slavery was coming to an end anyway. But thousands died to speed it up.

It was about states right to own slaves! Stop lying to yourself that it was for something noble because it wasn't. It was a bunch of democrats throwing a fit because they feared Lincoln was going to end slavery.... The stupid fucks forced him to do it.

 

[kaz]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

Ignorant nonsense.

More Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any time in our Nation’s history; and the freedom and liberty afforded to all Americans continues to be fostered by the Constitution and its case law as gay and transgender Americans move toward the realization of their comprehensive civil rights.

There is reason to be optimistic, as the best America is yet to come.

But the inane and unwarranted pessimism experienced by you and others on the fearful reactionary right is understandable, given your disdain for diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty that you incorrectly perceive for some bizarre reason as a ‘threat.’

That you see the onset of a socialist, nanny government with economic blase and no one getting ahead as the best is yet to come, that you expect others to see it that way is what is "ignorant."

 

[thanatos144]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

Ignorant nonsense.

More Americans enjoy greater freedom and liberty today than at any time in our Nation’s history; and the freedom and liberty afforded to all Americans continues to be fostered by the Constitution and its case law as gay and transgender Americans move toward the realization of their comprehensive civil rights.

There is reason to be optimistic, as the best America is yet to come.

But the inane and unwarranted pessimism experienced by you and others on the fearful reactionary right is understandable, given your disdain for diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty that you incorrectly perceive for some bizarre reason as a ‘threat.’

That you see the onset of a socialist, nanny government with economic blase and no one getting ahead as the best is yet to come, that you expect others to see it that way is what is "ignorant."

Why do you young libertarians always just want to give up???? Does hard work scare you guys?