Secession is perfectly Constitutional

[mvscal]

Queerland, I will even entertain your retarded drivel on this thread only. Do try to make sense if you are able.

[Wolfman]

Ask Alabama et al how that works.

[Screw_Michigan]

Ask Alabama et al how that works.

Wolftard makes a good point, for once.

[mvscal]

Texas v. White enters the chat

That is a legal opinion. I would suggest you actually read Chase's decision. It might be the most poorly written decision I've ever read. He babbles a bit about the Articles of Confederation and then begins to make assertions out of thin air completely unsupported by fact or the Contitution itself.

It was a purely political decision made by one of Lincoln's former cabinet members at the peak of Reconstruction.

[mvscal]

Queerland, I will even entertain your retarded drivel on this thread only. Do try to make sense if you are able.

The bottom line is this.

The left is totalitarian, authoritarian and anti-liberty.
So if they persist on their course, then the American people will protect and defend the constitutional republic at any and all costs.

"The tree of liberty".........

Can anyone finish this famous line?

This is a non sequitur.

[mvscal]

Ask Alabama et al how that works.

This is not an argument for or against the constitutionality of secession.

Next.

[mvscal]

Argument from authority logical fallacy.

[mvscal]

It simply reflects reality.

Chase maintains that a state may not unilaterally leave the union because....the Articles of Confederation say so. This is an absurd argument. If you are going to cite the decision as support for the position that secession is unconstitutional, you will need to defend that decision.

As you well know, there is no such thing as settled law. I'm more interested in your opinion than that rendered by Samuel Chase 153 years ago as he sat perched on a bomb that could blow the country up 4 years after the Civil War. Feel free to highlight the portion of his decision that you feel is particularly compelling for our consideration.

For example, I could argue that laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional.

By all means do so. That would be a great topic for another thread. I would certainly participate in that. This is discussion board, yes? Perhaps we can elevate the level of discourse here.

[Diego in Seattle]

It simply reflects reality.

Chase maintains that a state may not unilaterally leave the union because....the Articles of Confederation say so. This an absurd argument. If you are going to cite the decision as support for the position that secession is unconstitutional, you will need to defend that decision.

As you well know, there is no such thing as settled law.

So do you support charging these two with perjury?

[mvscal]

It simply reflects reality.

Chase maintains that a state may not unilaterally leave the union because....the Articles of Confederation say so. This an absurd argument. If you are going to cite the decision as support for the position that secession is unconstitutional, you will need to defend that decision.

As you well know, there is no such thing as settled law.

So do you support charging these two with perjury?

This is a non sequitur.

[Diego in Seattle]

Chase maintains that a state may not unilaterally leave the union because....the Articles of Confederation say so. This an absurd argument. If you are going to cite the decision as support for the position that secession is unconstitutional, you will need to defend that decision.

As you well know, there is no such thing as settled law.

So do you support charging these two with perjury?

This is a non sequitur.

No, it's not.

Both said that Roe v. Wade was settled law during their Senate confirmation hearings.

[mvscal]

Both said that Roe v. Wade was settled law during their Senate confirmation hearings.

Needless to say, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not secession is constitutional. Feel free to start a separate thread on the topic.

Thank you for participating. The receptionist will validate your parking.

NEXT

[Smackie Chan]

The 10th Amendment would appear to make secession Constitutional since there isn't any language in the document addressing it. Lincoln's and Chase's arguments in favor of it being unlawful were based on circular logic (Chase) or belief in the destructive outcome of it (Lincoln), but neither argued based on constitutionality.

There is much discussion that could take place regarding the subject, but the short answer is that there is no Constitutional basis for the prohibition of secession.

[mvscal]

The 10th Amendment would appear to make secession Constitutional since there isn't any language in the document addressing it. Lincoln's and Chase's arguments in favor of it being unlawful were based on circular logic (Chase) or belief in the destructive outcome of it (Lincoln), but neither argued based on constitutionality.

There is much discussion that could take place regarding the subject, but the short answer is that there is no Constitutional basis for the prohibition of secession.

This is the correct answer.

Needless to say, Lincoln was in an awkward position. The CSA firing on Ft. Sumter gave him a fig leaf to respond, if he wished. It is interesting to speculate on what would have happened if he hadn't responded. The northern tier of slave states still had not seceded at that point. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri were all still in play. That is an awful lot of real estate.

Just one more month of inaction might possibly have altered the trajectory of the conflict and possibly negated it altogether.

[smackaholic]

So what was the motivation for firing on Sumnter?

As you say, it sort of gave Lincoln a reason to respond militarily. And once you start lobbing shells at one another, things like law take a back seat. Could it have been some sort of false flag operation? Or just a bunch of reb assholes being idiots?

Seems like it would have been far more effective for the southern states to just inform DC that they'd be succeeding. And Lincoln would have had a much tougher time politically convincing northern states to send their sons stop someone from leaving the union.

[mvscal]

So what was the motivation for firing on Sumnter?

It could have been to goad Lincoln into a response that would bring the Upper South into the fold. It could have been that they were afraid that the continued presence of a reinforced Union garrison in Charleston harbor could inspire a slave revolt. It could have been pride and arrogance.

In any event, Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers solidified the line up.

[Smackie Chan]

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution addresses statehood, although the use of a semicolon in the clause has muddied up its meaning a bit regarding some of the limitations on how states can be admitted. The clause reads:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State 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.

Kentucky is an example of a state being formed from within the jurisdiction of another state (VA), but it was done so with the consent of the VA legislature.

There is also the "equal footing doctrine," a principle maintaining that all states admitted to the Union do so "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever," meaning there can be no special circumstances or agreements in place to admit a state that differ from any others.

Since there is no "opt out" clause, nor is there anything in the Constitution indicating, Mafia-like, that once in, there's no getting out, it would seem, once again, that the 10th Amendment could be invoked by any state wishing to secede.

Lincoln seemed to be arguing an early version of the "too big to fail" justification for declaring secession unlawful despite there being no Constitutional prohibition against it. At the time, the US was the only democracy on the planet, and Lincoln believed allowing states to secede would spell the end, forever, of the self-governing experiment. The experiment and the Union were simply too big and too important to be allowed to fail without a fight despite the lack of Constitutional air cover; hence, the Civil War.

[smackaholic]

If they had handled it like civilized adults, I wonder how many would have succeeded?

Next question is how much longer would slavery have gone on?

My guess is that it would have died on its own for economic reasons as farm equipment advancements meant large reductions in labor needs.

It’s a damn shame we didn’t follow the British example and simply buy the slaves freedom.

Related to this topic, what do you all think about the idea of counties choosing to move to a neighboring state?

I think it’s a good idea for one simple reason.

Membership in a political organization should be voluntary. Also, giving counties the tool of succeeding, gives them bargaining power.

This is currently an idea being discussed in “dry side” counties in Oregon who would like to be part of Idaho.

And how about the idea of a sections of a state just deciding to break off?

There is precedent, in KY and WV.

The only problem I see with that is you’d have everyone doing it and before long, we’d have about 7248 Senators.

The solution there, something long overdue, IMO is get rid of the 2/state rule and dole out Senate seats in proportion to population.

The current law means someone in Wyoming has close to 100 times more Senators/person than Cali.

I fail to see how that is fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kierland]

Pedokkkal, of course, asks the childish question of if it’s constitutional. Of course it’s constitutional, from the USA side. We jettisoned the Philippines due it it being a bombed out hell scape and we could do the same to any shit state we wanted from Nebraska to Alabama. But maybe he missed what schoolhouse rock was trying to tell him.

The proper question is what would happen if a state tried to opt out and the answer of course is (barring some acquiescence by the USA as noted above) who has the most guns wins. It’s a power question not a legal one.

It’s also, like pedokkkal, very simplistic. What would be the mechanism? It’s like asking “is a divorce legal?” in a place with no divorce laws. Yeah you can ask to leave but how would that work? Your Senator would goto Congress? But they are saying they are not a Senator because they opted out. Are they going to tweet it out? Was there a referendum or was it a legislative action? Again it would get back to guns or acquiescence.

And of course gingerbread brain puts all the states on equal footing even Nevada which is 80% owned by the USA. How would that work? Is it legal to confiscate USA land? I think not. Are those laws constitutional? I think so. So how is it constitutional to confiscate the USA’s property without their consent? It isn’t.

Now put me back on ignore you stupid yellow simplistic pile of dingleberries masquerading as a human being.

[Rootbeer]

The current law means someone in Wyoming has close to 100 times more Senators/person than Cali.

Wyoming is the 10th largest state with ONE house representative. That's a lot of land and I'll be damned if some urban sprawl in California is going to tell us what to do with our winter-blasted prairies.

Take away Wyoming's influence in the Senate and I guarantee this place disunites from the rest of the country.

[Kierland]

Stop my privilege and I’ll burn the place down. Typical spoiled brat.

[Diego in Seattle]

The current law means someone in Wyoming has close to 100 times more Senators/person than Cali.

Wyoming is the 10th largest state with ONE house representative. That's a lot of land and I'll be damned if some urban sprawl in California is going to tell us what to do with our winter-blasted prairies.

I'll be damned if cows in some flyover state get more representation in the House than the people of California & Washington.

[Kierland]

Root beer is an idiot. He thinks land votes.

[Kierland]

More proof none of you ever cared about repetition.

[Screw_Michigan]

Pedokkkal, of course, asks the childish question of if it’s constitutional. Of course it’s constitutional, from the USA side. We jettisoned the Philippines due it it being a bombed out hell scape and we could do the same to any shit state we wanted from Nebraska to Alabama. But maybe he missed what schoolhouse rock was trying to tell him.

The proper question is what would happen if a state tried to opt out and the answer of course is (barring some acquiescence by the USA as noted above) who has the most guns wins. It’s a power question not a legal one.

It’s also, like pedokkkal, very simplistic. What would be the mechanism? It’s like asking “is a divorce legal?” in a place with no divorce laws. Yeah you can ask to leave but how would that work? Your Senator would goto Congress? But they are saying they are not a Senator because they opted out. Are they going to tweet it out? Was there a referendum or was it a legislative action? Again it would get back to guns or acquiescence.

And of course gingerbread brain puts all the states on equal footing even Nevada which is 80% owned by the USA. How would that work? Is it legal to confiscate USA land? I think not. Are those laws constitutional? I think so. So how is it constitutional to confiscate the USA’s property without their consent? It isn’t.

Now put me back on ignore you stupid yellow simplistic pile of dingleberries masquerading as a human being.

Oh.....my

[Screw_Michigan]

Wyoming is the 10th largest state with ONE house representative. That's a lot of land and I'll be damned if some urban sprawl in California is going to tell us what to do with our winter-blasted prairies.

Take away Wyoming's influence in the Senate and I guarantee this place disunites from the rest of the country.

Like anyone would miss your barren fucking shithole if you left the Union. Don't let the door hit you in your ass.

[Sudden Sam]

Screwy, you ever been to Wyoming? It’s an incredibly gorgeous state. Winter would clearly be brutal, but the rest of the year would be fantastic.

[Kierland]

It’s a hell hole plus a few nice parks. So yeah the Socialism part is nice the rest is rednecks and dirt.

[Sudden Sam]

Good people enjoy land. Desolation. Vistas.

[Diego in Seattle]

Good people enjoy land. Desolation. Vistas.

Pinedale, Wyoming:

[Kierland]

Good people enjoy land. Desolation. Vistas.

But you are too fat to even leave your house.

[Sudden Sam]

Good people enjoy land. Desolation. Vistas.

But you are too fat to even leave your house.

You have established that you’re a dumbass. Why do you feel compelled to repeatedly reinforce that fact?

[Kierland]

Same MO as spray. Always deflect. Always stray off topic.

[Screw_Michigan]

Same MO as spray. Always deflect. Always stray off topic.

[Sudden Sam]

Same MO as spray. Always deflect. Always stray off topic.

Hmmm…I disagree with your assessment of both PW and me 100%, but…

I guess you got me. Hot damn! I can play guitar now! Whoohoo!!!

BTW, this shit is waaaay off topic. Get back to secession, which holds zero interest for me.

[Kierland]

You some how even turned that into a I know you are off topic but what am I. Amazingly stupid.

[Rootbeer]

Screwy, you ever been to Wyoming? It’s an incredibly gorgeous state. Winter would clearly be brutal, but the rest of the year would be fantastic.

No it's not.

Don't be inviting people here. This place sucks. Y'all stay in your beautiful cities and leave me to my desolate hellhole.

[Sudden Sam]

Screwy, you ever been to Wyoming? It’s an incredibly gorgeous state. Winter would clearly be brutal, but the rest of the year would be fantastic.

No it's not.

Don't be inviting people here. This place sucks. Y'all stay in your beautiful cities and leave me to my desolate hellhole.

Shit. Wasn’t thinking. Yeah, Wyoming sucks. It’s a cesspool. No drag queens. Libs would hate it there.
:wink:

[88BuckeyeGrad]

to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

It’s not a Constitutional argument. But it is axiomatic that governments of the people, by the people and for the people (Lincoln, yo) can only derive just powers if they have the consent of the governed (see quote above). Thus, if the governed no longer consent, our history seems to suggest that they should have the power to declare independence (which may only be obtainable via secession). What kind of government would force its people to submit to governance without their consent? S’up Authoritarianism?

[Screw_Michigan]

It’s not a Constitutional argument. But it is axiomatic that governments of the people, by the people and for the people (Lincoln, yo) can only derive just powers if they have the consent of the governed (see quote above). Thus, if the governed no longer consent, our history seems to suggest that they should have the power to declare independence (which may only be obtainable via secession). What kind of government would force its people to submit to governance without their consent? S’up Authoritarianism?

Bye already. You red shitholes can have your garbage economies. Us blue states (as of course the District will be a state) will have our prosperity.