Author Topic: Was The Union Perpetual?  (Read 16932 times)

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2012, 03:55:56 PM »
"Based on" is incorrect, it would be more correct to say the were inspired by the Jim Crow laws of the old South.

Which were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2012, 05:21:54 PM »
Which were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.
It was upheld until it dawned on them the Justice Harlan's dissent in the original case of Plessy vs Fergueson was correct.
Quote
"There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal ...."
But as many have pointed out, open racism was simply a fact of life in the 19th century. The Death Camps of Europe tended to give those attitudes a bad name.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2012, 07:55:40 AM »
The notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous.  Had Lincoln allowed the south to secede, it would not only prolong slavery for god-knows-how-long, it would establish a precedent for any remaining state to secede from the Union whenever it doesn't get its way.  Soon, the United States would devolve into what we see in central and southern america.

Lincoln put it perfectly; a contract cannot be broken without mutual consent.  If we adhere to the strict constitutionalists' notion that the Constitution is a contract between the union and the states (I disagree), then this simply establishes that the states cannot leave the Union without the latter's consent, by the entire definition of a contract.


-----------------------------------------------

Which were upheld by every SCOTUS until an all liberal court in 1954 gave us Brown based on 'modern authority'. Then you have the gall to compare those in the South as joining with the Nazi's. I reiterate my statement.

Which is perhaps the most important ruling in our nation's history; why didn't any of your conservative judges ever champion civil rights?

Fok you, MD. That was totally uncalled for.

No, MD is right.  Read the confederate states' declarations of secession and the confederate constitution.  They are among the most disgusting documents ever written, and I find it difficult to believe that the confederacy would do anything other than eagerly ally with Hitler.

After all, what difference exists between the two?

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67760
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2012, 08:18:56 AM »
The notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional,
Let me stop you there, show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that secession is illegal.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2012, 08:26:49 AM »
Let me stop you there, show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that secession is illegal.

1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual.  The Constitution seeks to create "a more perfect union", which certainly does not connote weakening it, especially given the vast increases in federal power and decreases in relative state power that the document entails.

2. The Constitution decrees that federal law is supreme over state law; ergo, if a state votes to secede and Congress says no, the latter's word is law.

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2012, 09:04:46 AM »
There is a school of thought on this subject that holds that North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia had the right to secede because it was more or less a given at the time of federation that if things didn't work out, it was goodbye. The same wouldn't necessarily apply to the remainder of the Confederate states, since they came along after the nation had been formed.

In any case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not, and were never meant to be, a complete digest of the rights of the several states. You have to remember that when they were written, and until they were ratified, the several states had ALL the rights and the federal government was just an idea. In any case, any rights to secession -- and I'm not arguing that they exist, or that they don't -- would be nicely covered by the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically and expressly written to put some pretty tight shackles on the new federal government, while reserving to the states the maximum freedom to govern themselves.

Also the Supremacy Clause is, I think, pretty limited to matters elsewhere specifically covered in the Constitution, such as laws governing interstate commerce, for example. To say that Congress can prohibit a state from seceding, and that's that, is a bit of a stretch. If Congress can do that, then it can also just pass a law disbanding the State of Arizona, something I think Dear Leader wouldn't mind doing right about now.  :tounge:

Oh, and the Articles of Confederation were officially supplanted by the Constitution on March 4, 1789, and didn't much matter in 1861.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67760
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2012, 09:15:11 AM »
1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual.  The Constitution seeks to create "a more perfect union", which certainly does not connote weakening it, especially given the vast increases in federal power and decreases in relative state power that the document entails.

2. The Constitution decrees that federal law is supreme over state law; ergo, if a state votes to secede and Congress says no, the latter's word is law.
You just proved my point that secession is not unconstitutional.
Quote
The notion that a state could secede from the Union as a result of losing honestly in a national election is not only unconstitutional,
See what a little research does, it destroys preconceived ideas that were planted in your head.
This is your first venture into critical thinking.
Keep up the good work.
 Try this little experiment, play Devils advocate before you hit post, I do and it really makes you think outside the box.. :wink:
#WWG1WGA

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2012, 09:19:48 AM »
You just proved my point that secession is not unconstitutional.

Nope.  The supremacy clause does not allow a state to actively renounce and nullify federal authority, which is precisely what secession entails.  Try again.

Ruling secession to be constitutional would be a death sentence for the nation, anyhow.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67760
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2012, 10:23:30 AM »
Nope.  The supremacy clause does not allow a state to actively renounce and nullify federal authority, which is precisely what secession entails.  Try again.

Ruling secession to be constitutional would be a death sentence for the nation, anyhow.
You can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional. :laugh:
#WWG1WGA

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2012, 10:32:51 AM »
You can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional. :laugh:

He IS an admitted liberal. Were you expecting caviar?
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2012, 10:34:05 AM »
You can't have it both ways, you claimed it was unconstitutional, then proved yourself wrong in that it was Constitutional. :laugh:

Does the preceding "does not allow a state" clause escape your notice, or did you willfully ignore sections of my post to avoid actually arguing the point?




Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67760
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2012, 11:38:30 AM »
Does the preceding "does not allow a state" clause escape your notice, or did you willfully ignore sections of my post to avoid actually arguing the point?
So which time were you flat ass wrong, when you claimed it wasn't Constitutional, or when you proved yourself wrong?

You see, this is why liberalism/socialism is sooo despised and can't be trusted, you claim a certain set of rules to play by, then change said rules midstream to meet your goals.
Conservatives play by the law, we all agree to follow the rules, but libs keep moving the goal posts until they claim a score, then reset the goal posts to favor them in the next play.

Just think if our social contract was set by the rules libs play by, like a red light really doesn't mean stop if you don't want it to, or drive on the left if it saves you a few cents in gas.

Face reality son, this is why the Dim party is going to become completely irrelevant in 2013, people want to go back to reality, where electricity isn't generated by Unicorn farts (HT to Giles) or the sun, but things that are proven to work.

In a nutshell, were done with your version of reality in pursuit of a fantasy Utopian dream.
#WWG1WGA

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67760
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2012, 11:40:15 AM »
He IS an admitted liberal. Were you expecting caviar?
Do you believe this happy horse shit? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
#WWG1WGA

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2012, 11:45:52 AM »
The Constitution of the United States lays out the manner in which changes can be made to that document and thus the Union. I must have missed it. Can somebody point me to the debates over the South's Secession Amendment. You know neo Confederate often point to the New England States wanting to secede during the War of 1812, as a precursor to the Souths attempt. What they don't bring up, is that the War of 1812 ended just as the delegation had arrived in Washington from the New England states to offer a secession AMENDMENT. When they found the war was over they quietly went home.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM »
So which time were you flat ass wrong, when you claimed it wasn't Constitutional, or when you proved yourself wrong?

Does regurgitating the same absent-of-evidence claim again and again, like a trained monkey, make you feel intelligent?

Because you still haven't explained where I "proved myself wrong".

Quote
You see, this is why liberalism/socialism is sooo despised and can't be trusted, you claim a certain set of rules to play by, then change said rules midstream to meet your goals.

Yeah, the classic argument of strict constitutionalism.  We should base our policy not on what is beneficial to society, but on a set of guidelines posted by 300 year old slaveowners that are clearly to be treated as gospel.   :rolleyes:

Quote
Conservatives play by the law, we all agree to follow the rules, but libs keep moving the goal posts until they claim a score, then reset the goal posts to favor them in the next play.

You are actually close to hitting the mark, if we were to modify your rather derogatory rhetoric.  The interesting thing is that precisely this method of policy-making is what has been responsible for every advancement in human society.  What; you don't think the founders significantly changed the rules of British law when they declared independence?  You don't think Brown v Board was a dramatic reinterpretation of the Constitution?  Nah.

Explain to me why we must treat the Constitution like a fundamentalist treats the gospel.

Quote
Just think if our social contract was set by the rules libs play by, like a red light really doesn't mean stop if you don't want it to, or drive on the left if it saves you a few cents in gas.

How does any of this analogy have the slightest relation to secession?

Do you realize that your own analogy is an incitement against your very position?  Secession means that a state can secede from the Union whenever a lawful election doesn't go its way, or whenever those pesky feds try taking away their human slaves.  Ergo, it's the equivalent of violating the law whenever it's convenient to you; precisely your analogy.

Also, you don't seem to understand that a contract works both ways.

Quote

Face reality son, this is why the Dim party is going to become completely irrelevant in 2013, people want to go back to reality, where electricity isn't generated by Unicorn farts (HT to Giles) or the sun, but things that are proven to work.


Proven to work?

Quote
In a nutshell, were done with your version of reality in pursuit of a fantasy Utopian dream.

Same thing said about child labor laws and women's suffrage.  "Proven to work"?  There's one side that's proven itself throughout history, and it ain't yours.

 

Powered by EzPortal