Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't have to prove anything, the Court has spoken and as Justice Hughes said: the Constitution is what the Court say it is. I suppose with some Court decisions some lay on the floor kicking their little feet but to what purpose?Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.It is the Court and when you become the Court, you can make big decisions too, and if the decisions are infallible, so be it, you are the Court.We are discussing the legality of secession and the Court has ruled on the legality issue, so then it comes down to force as was tried in the Civil War.
Only a congenital numskull believes the Supreme Court is infallible.
ROFL! In other words, you do believe the court is infallible. Thanks for admitting it.
So you admit that court decisions can be wrong. No you just have to prove that the court was right when it ruled against secession.
It's showing how some of the states that studied it at the time - slave states even -- came away saying Secession is not sanctioned by the US Constitution.
[
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.
No where does it say congress doesn't have the power to keep a state from leaving .So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.OK....A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.He does.He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?
How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.
Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?
Obviously:It's showing how some of the states that studied it at the time - slave states even -- came away saying Secession is not sanctioned by the US Constitution.
HAHAHA. Yes that's true - because secession is never mentioned in the constitution. THINK
You mean it is bad that a government defend itself from attack? Been smoking crack?The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.
Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.
If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.
In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.
Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secessionOK, so...The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.OK....A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.
How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.
Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.
Amendment X
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
Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?
The Court decided they had the authority in Marbury v Madison and America has accepted that decision; so now the Court decides. A Court decision usually affects at least one party in a negative manner and when the Supreme Court makes a ruling it can upset millions.[
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.
Who says america has accepted that.? Millions of americans disagree with letting 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue. Esp since the constitution says they DON'T have such authority.
More proof you are a dumb ass. If the state can't secede how the fuck is it being invaded also how the fuck do you invade something when you were there all the fucking time?The solution is for the federal government to follow the Constitution and refrain from invading the states and committing mass murder. If a state wants to leave, that's its prerogative.I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.
I can't imagine anything more idiotic than claiming the gold standard is anti free market. The gold standard is the foundation of the free market. You don't even need government to implement it. In fact, the federal government actively prosecutes anyone who even tries to set up accounts denominated in units of gold.
The Court decided they had the authority in Marbury v Madison and America has accepted that decision; so now the Court decides. A Court decision usually affects at least one party in a negative manner and when the Supreme Court makes a ruling it can upset millions.[
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.
Who says america has accepted that.? Millions of americans disagree with letting 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue. Esp since the constitution says they DON'T have such authority.
The solution is for the federal government to follow the Constitution and refrain from invading the states and committing mass murder. If a state wants to leave, that's its prerogative.I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.
I can't imagine anything more idiotic than claiming the gold standard is anti free market. The gold standard is the foundation of the free market. You don't even need government to implement it. In fact, the federal government actively prosecutes anyone who even tries to set up accounts denominated in units of gold.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
The Court in Marbury v Madison said that we the people gave the power to interpret the Constitution to the Court in the Constitution. The Constitution also gave the executive branch the power to enforce the laws of the United States. So there it is. The Court interprets the law and the executive enforces the law.The Court decided they had the authority in Marbury v Madison and America has accepted that decision; so now the Court decides. A Court decision usually affects at least one party in a negative manner and when the Supreme Court makes a ruling it can upset millions.[
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.
Who says america has accepted that.? Millions of americans disagree with letting 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue. Esp since the constitution says they DON'T have such authority.
BULLSHIT.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IF A COURT RULING AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO US THEN WE KNOW, OR SHOULD NOW , THAT THE "JUSTICES" ARE PERPETRATING A FRAUD.
.
The solution is for the federal government to follow the Constitution and refrain from invading the states and committing mass murder. If a state wants to leave, that's its prerogative.I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.
I can't imagine anything more idiotic than claiming the gold standard is anti free market. The gold standard is the foundation of the free market. You don't even need government to implement it. In fact, the federal government actively prosecutes anyone who even tries to set up accounts denominated in units of gold.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using TapatalkThe Court in Marbury v Madison said that we the people gave the power to interpret the Constitution to the Court in the Constitution. The Constitution also gave the executive branch the power to enforce the laws of the United States. So there it is. The Court interprets the law and the executive enforces the law.The Court decided they had the authority in Marbury v Madison and America has accepted that decision; so now the Court decides. A Court decision usually affects at least one party in a negative manner and when the Supreme Court makes a ruling it can upset millions.[
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.
Who says america has accepted that.? Millions of americans disagree with letting 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue. Esp since the constitution says they DON'T have such authority.
BULLSHIT.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IF A COURT RULING AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO US THEN WE KNOW, OR SHOULD NOW , THAT THE "JUSTICES" ARE PERPETRATING A FRAUD.
.
And who decides if the Court is altering Amending or interpreting?The solution is for the federal government to follow the Constitution and refrain from invading the states and committing mass murder. If a state wants to leave, that's its prerogative.I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.
I can't imagine anything more idiotic than claiming the gold standard is anti free market. The gold standard is the foundation of the free market. You don't even need government to implement it. In fact, the federal government actively prosecutes anyone who even tries to set up accounts denominated in units of gold.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using TapatalkThe Court in Marbury v Madison said that we the people gave the power to interpret the Constitution to the Court in the Constitution. The Constitution also gave the executive branch the power to enforce the laws of the United States. So there it is. The Court interprets the law and the executive enforces the law.The Court decided they had the authority in Marbury v Madison and America has accepted that decision; so now the Court decides. A Court decision usually affects at least one party in a negative manner and when the Supreme Court makes a ruling it can upset millions.[
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself. I disagree with many Court decisions including their biggie, Marbury. But America has now accepted the Court as the final word on legalisms so that's it for better or worse.
Who says america has accepted that.? Millions of americans disagree with letting 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue. Esp since the constitution says they DON'T have such authority.
BULLSHIT.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IF A COURT RULING AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DICTATE TO US THEN WE KNOW, OR SHOULD NOW , THAT THE "JUSTICES" ARE PERPETRATING A FRAUD.
.
INTERPRET , YES
AMEND OR ALTER IT , NO.
More proof you are a dumb ass. If the state can't secede how the fuck is it being invaded also how the fuck do you invade something when you were there all the fucking time?The solution is for the federal government to follow the Constitution and refrain from invading the states and committing mass murder. If a state wants to leave, that's its prerogative.I wonder if even an amendment to the Constitution would make secession possible? Is it a Constitutional issue or one similar to childbirth where, neither the child nor parents, can declare one is not the child of the parents. Perhaps the only solution for secession is for the president, the Congress and the Court to be in agreement for the state or states to leave the union. Perhaps if Lincoln had let the erring sisters go there would have been no Civil War and we might have a number of nations now occupying our boundaries.
I can't imagine anything more idiotic than claiming the gold standard is anti free market. The gold standard is the foundation of the free market. You don't even need government to implement it. In fact, the federal government actively prosecutes anyone who even tries to set up accounts denominated in units of gold.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk
This does nothing to support your point or disprove mine.No where does it say congress doesn't have the power to keep a state from leaving .So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.OK....A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?
How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.
Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?
The 10th is about powers and rights retained by the states,.Where does it imply that a state can? The tenth is about state laws and regulations not secessionOK, so...The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did.So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?
No power granted to the federal government to allow states to leave.
No prohibition on the states leaving.
Amendment X
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
Where is there a sound argument that the states cannot unilaterally secede?
The Court in Marbury v Madison said that we the people gave the power to interpret the Constitution to the Court in the Constitution. .
And who decides if the Court is altering Amending or interpreting?
