Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Amendment IX wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So because it is not denied to the States in the Constitution it is given as an option to the States.Amendment X wrote: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are rserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So you were, in fact, openly lying when you claimedJeremy wrote:Sir Nitram, thank you for pointing that out!
Amendment IX wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So because it is not denied to the States in the Constitution it is given as an option to the States.Amendment X wrote: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are rserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You simply interperate it into text which mentions nothing of the sort. Typical dishonest bullshit.we have the ability (garunteed to the States) to secede
*Looks at location.*Jeremy wrote:We don't have to rebel, we have the ability (garunteed to the States) to secede--unless someone from Illinois is in office.
Ah. Didn't see the second page. Now then...Jeremy wrote:Sir Nitram, thank you for pointing that out!
Amendment IX wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.So because it is not denied to the States in the Constitution it is given as an option to the States.Amendment X wrote: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are rserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Emphasis mine.United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 wrote:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Again, emphasis mine. Looking pretty denied so far...United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 wrote:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Again, denied.United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Hmmmm. Owned and denied.Chief Justice Chase, Majority Decision wrote:Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
Emphasis mine. A Presidential term is fairly transient, wouldn't you say?Declaration of Independence wrote:Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; but accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
frigidmagi wrote:Strange thing about Jeremy here, direct from his profile...
So how often does he kick himself and enjoy it?All about Jeremy
Location: Ocala, Marion, la Florida, CSA
Interests: History, Babylon 5, and Kickin Rebel Scum like no one else can!
Bolds are mine.
Okay.SirNitram wrote:So you were, in fact, openly lying when you claimed
... You simply interperate it into text which mentions nothing of the sort. Typical dishonest bullshit.
Went trolling and looks like I cought something.Rogue 9 wrote:*Looks at location.*
Okay, smartass.
Yes, I do.frigidmagi wrote:You realize that the President is vested with power to put down rebellion in the Constitution right?
About as much as I stick my foot in my mouth?firigidmagi wrote:So how often does he kick himself and enjoy it?
Okay.Rouge 9 wrote:Ah. Didn't see the second page. Now then...
Unfortunate but needed.Rogue 9 wrote: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2
This is true of States still in the Union.Rogue 9 wrote: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3
This is again true of those that are its citizens.Rogue 9 wrote: Article 3, Section 3
I disagree with this conclusion as much as I disagree with late-term abortion. The Preamble of the Constitution states that it was composed to form a more perfect Union of the States. Its acceptance is proof that people believed this organization of central government would help them through justice, security (against riots {Rodney King}, rebelion {Whiskey Rebellion}, and invasion {Francisco "Pancho" Villa}), making a better life, and preserving liberty.Rogue 9 wrote: the Texas vs. White Supreme Court cause
I would.Rogue 9 wrote:A Presidential term is fairly transient, wouldn't you say?
I have honestly never seen one of those.HemlockGrey wrote:Does anyone know where I can buy those cool bumper stickers that have the Union flag, and next to it the CSA flag X'ed out, with the caption, "You lost, get over it?"
Well good for you. Are you the Supreme Court of the United States? Thought not. Therefore, your opinion on the matter means precisely jack shit.I disagree with this conclusion as much as I disagree with late-term abortion.
I don't know of any states that AREN'T in the Union, do you? Unless you are speaking of the United States of Europe.This is true of States still in the Union.
Foremost, you must separate justice and justification for legality. You cannot rebel against the state, for the state is supreme. You can rebel, and your rebellion would be justified morally if the government were bad/corrupt, but you would still not be legal. NOt everything that is legal is moral.What is rebellion? Passages in the Constitution spell out, somewhat, what can be done against an insurrection or rebellion and also what Treason is. Rebellion is opposing a law, insurrection is attempting to overthrow the government. Correct?
what would one consider imminent danger. Just external threats? What about internal threats? So if a majority of congress supports state rebellion, would it be legal?If the Union does not work for any of its members shouldn't they be able to resign from it and form a new more perfect state of existence? Just like the Constitution was intended for. [.quote]
If the majority is getting screwed you would be justified in forming a new government. If you can pull it off, who cares if it were legal? You have a federal government for a reason. It is superior to the states. It's word is the final law, not the word of the state, except in certain areas. Seccession was clearly stoped. States do not have the power to fight the Federal Government even IF their cases are justified unless they have a considerable state numerical advantage. Even then, you would be destroying the union and damaging the lives of other American citizens.
And they were gravely mistaken. They disrupted the Union and were engaging in a socially/economically destructive practice.
The Confederacy, however, had elements that believed themselves to be under the 'oppression' and ' attacks' of others for much longer than four years.
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 wrote:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
It was his ill fortune to air that where I could see it. I have nearly 20 forum pages of arguments against this very assertion to draw upon, argued against the same three obstinant idiots over three threads and two boards. I was armed to the teeth when he walked in with this.Illuminatus Primus wrote::claps:
I must admit you served this one up with aplomb, Rogue.
Actually, I showed that the Declaration of Independence says that. The Constitution actually makes no allowance for the matter at all.Even so, the constitution, as was shown by Rogue, says presidential terms and such temporary ills are not even justifiable. It is not as if Bush is a permanent dictator or the government is totally evil and corrupt longterm.
That court belonged to a government that was comitted to keeping its dominance over the member states even if the member states no longer wanted to participate in that government. That is not what the Constitution was made for, it was made for the States to work together better and to help the people in it. What else can one expect it to rule?Rogue 9 wrote:Well good for you. Are you the Supreme Court of the United States? Thought not. Therefore, your opinion on the matter means precisely jack shit.
Every country in the world is a state isn't it? A State is just the government organized by and for (sometims) the people right?nimetski wrote:I don't know of any states that AREN'T in the Union, do you?
If you think so.nimetski wrote:And they were gravely mistaken.
Withdrawing from it? Yes. They did disrupt it (just as any seccession would) and the way they did withdraw was definantly not the most friendly way.nimetski wrote:They disrupted the Union
I take it that you mean slavery. The War of Northern Aggression did not prove the legality of anything but it did prove that the non-South had a militarily, industrialy, and economically superior culture. It proved that they were unwilling to let those that no longer wished to be a part of that Union exercise their own fate.nimetski wrote:were engaging in a socially/economically destructive practice
Florida Declaration of Secession wrote: We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed.
Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 54.
[Passed Jan. 10, 1861]
However moron, A secession, especially an armed one, is an at of rebellin and warmaking..This is true of States still in the Union.
Hey dumbass, the constitution makesno allowance for secession and specifically gives te president the power to put todwn rebellion. Succeeding from the union is by definition, a rebellion. Hence, the president had the power to force the rebellion to stand down, and the rebel scum had no legal grunds upon which to stand.This is again true of those that are its citizens.
All the Confederate States passed Ordinances of Secession, which say in a paragraph, "we've seceded and Federal law no longer applies". None of them provide reasoning for this decision.Xenophobe3691 wrote:Actually, Florida's Declaration of Secession mentions nothing about Slavery. At all.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
1. No. Not all countries are states. They are Nation-states. There is a major difference. You can have a state, a city-state, and a nation-state. Unless you specifically say nation- or city- You are not referring to anything other than a State of the United States.nimetski wrote:
I don't know of any states that AREN'T in the Union, do you?
Every country in the world is a state isn't it? A State is just the government organized by and for (sometims) the people right?
nimetski wrote:
And they were gravely mistaken.
If you think so.
nimetski wrote:
They disrupted the Union
Withdrawing from it? Yes. They did disrupt it (just as any seccession would) and the way they did withdraw was definantly not the most friendly way.
nimetski wrote:
were engaging in a socially/economically destructive practice
I take it that you mean slavery. The War of Northern Aggression did not prove the legality of anything but it did prove that the non-South had a militarily, industrialy, and economically superior culture. It proved that they were unwilling to let those that no longer wished to be a part of that Union exercise their own fate.
Total bullshit. The entire catalyst for southern secession was the fear that Lincoln was going to try and abolish slavery.2. I do think so. Their cause was bogus, they inflicted needless harship on the nation, and they were a bunch of greedy rednecks who didn't want any change. I am nto saying the north was all moral. The civil war was not over slavery, afterall.
