Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[4588686]

I don't say that to be dismissive.  I genuinely appreciate the thought that you are putting into arguing your case and arguing it well.  It just strikes me a purely abstract consideration since there is no real legal framework for this to happen.  

[Aloysius]

Hasan we already went through that, same criteria for ration by the constitution is criteria for rescinding ratification. if the legislature does not have the authority to rescind ratification, then it never had authority to ratify in the first place.

I don't say that to be dismissive. I genuinely appreciate the thought that you are putting into arguing your case and arguing it well. It just strikes me a purely abstract consideration since there is no real legal framework for this to happen.

lack of legal framework - the tie goes to the runner.

But I admit. it is rather abstract because a giant military welding madman is basically holding the legislatures hostage and it would never allow some group and territory that it uses ti get the resources it uses to kill children around the world to leave.

[4588686]

Hasan we already went through that, same criteria for ration by the constitution is criteria for rescinding ratification.  if the legislature does not have the authority to rescind ratification, then it never had authority to ratify in the first place.

 

 

 

Weren't you in favor of a legal category for marriages that could not be legally dissolved?   I'm not asking that to be obnoxious.  I don't know of any logical necessity to states a priori that legal power cannot be asymmetrical and I don't know of anything in the Constitution or the legal tradition that states this.  It's a reasonable position.  But your whole argument for secession rests on a hyper literal interpretation of the constitution and the constitution contains no discursive methodology for working such reasonable asumptions.  Your seem to be excluding meta-analysis in your interpretations of the constitution, which is fine, until you try to make these little jumps in your argument to get you from point 'a' to point 'b'

[Aloysius]

Keno weren't stuck posting on a phone I'd get.more into it maybe, the point of insoluble marriage contracts is that 1 itsbexplicitly stated in Tue contract (tue constitution didn't even maintain the use of the word perpetual, it had no such explicit agreement) and 2 you were only binding yourself to the agreement. The legislature in the late 18th century that ratified the constitution for my commonwealth should not be able to bind my current legislature to their decision, they should have every right to rescind it on the Sam authority with which it was ratified.

[Nihil Obstat]

That was the best post ever.

Dat Sam authority.

[Winchester]

[Winchester]

Exactly.  There is no constitutional right to secession.  Right.  According to the US government.  In the US legal system you have no legal right that the legal system does not grant you.  Should that be the case?  Maybe, maybe not.  But that is what is.  Maybe anarcho-capitalism is the right system.  Maybe states should have a right to secede.  I think that people ought to have a constitutional right to access to necessary health care.  I think that there is a very strong moral and economic case for a single payer health care system.  Maybe if the framers had been wiser they would have made a secession clause.  Maybe maybe maybe.  But there isn't.  The courts have decided on this issue.  Maybe they'll overturn it.  Go convince a state government to vote for secession and then argue your case in the courts and maybe you'll get the right to secede.  Good look.  But right now that right does not exist.  Maybe it will tomorrow.  But today it doesn't.  

 

The Constitution was not written to grant legal rights to the states. Nor was it written to grant rights to individuals.

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Federalist 45.

 

It's not necessary for the Constitution to enumerate a right of secession of a state.

[Socrates]

I know.  Good white Christian men just wanted their slaves and were worried that the federal government was going to infringe on that right.  A clear example of statism and the degradation of liberty if there ever was one.  The same perceptive logic that led the babbling twit brilliant statesman Ron Paul to declare that the Civil Rights act did not expand human liberty.  He was right, of course.  If you are concerned with the traditional interests of American Libertarianism, the rich and the powerful.  The Civil Rights Acts were a sever infringement on the rights and abilities of the powerful the keep their black populations in severely oppressed conditions.  

 

 

 

That's a very astute point.  Assuming, of course, that white lives are much more valuable than black lives.  

 

Stay on target, Porkins.

 

The Civil Rights act had nothing to do with the War Between the States, and was generations later.

 

The right of states to secede from the Union is a separate issue from that of slavery, and emancipation of the slaves was not even an original objective of the North in fighting the war - but to preserve the Union.  Lincoln - who was in reality far from advocate of racial equality - only introduced emancipation towards the end of the war.

 

Most of those fighting on the Confederate side were not slave owners, and there were free blacks fighting for the Confederacy.  A number of states which had formerly opposed secession, including Virginia, joined the Confederacy only after the Union troops invaded South Carolina, as they saw this as a violation of states' rights.

An, just to give two examples, the two greatest generals of the Confederacy, Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, were opposed to slavery and originally supported preserving the Union, but fought on behalf of their home state and sister states against Northern aggression.

 

The war wasn't the simplistic "Noble Yankees vs. Evil Slavery-loving Southerners" matter pc pop-history makes it out to be.

 

Slavery would have likely died out on its own in the South, without the war - just as it did elsewhere in the world.  Far more Americans were killed and lives wrecked in the War Between the States than in any other war fought by Americans.

The Constitution was not written to grant legal rights to the states. Nor was it written to grant rights to individuals.

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Federalist 45.

 

It's not necessary for the Constitution to enumerate a right of secession of a state.

This.

 

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

[Lilllabettt]

you are correct. Lincoln fought the war to preserve the perpetual Union of the states. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military necessity vital to that effort. He asserted the indissolubility of the Union to the point of denying the reality of the secession of Southern states as a "fact on the ground" - in his legal opinion they remained full fledged American states held hostage by groups of armed rebels.

 

You may recall that his armies were victorious in promulgating his legal opinion; that he was assassinated, declared a martyr, and deified with an actual temple with the actual inscription: "in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever." 

 

and yet the fantasy persists that secession of an American state from the Union would somehow be legal.

 

 

[Groo the Wanderer]

"Lincoln fought the war to preserve the perpetual Union of the states. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military necessity political stunt vital to that effort. because support for the war was waning in the North."

 

 

 

It did NOT free the slaves after all.  It only declared free those slaves in those states 'in open rebellion' who would take up arms on the side of the North.  The idea was to shift attention away from the ongoing loss of life on both sides and rejuvenate the war effort in the North by making an issue of something that originally had nothing to do with the war, in order to bring in fresh support from an ignored but vocal political bloc - the abolitionists.

 

 

Not saying slavery was right, ever.  Just saying the EP was an overrated document and was not issued out of egalitarianism.  Otherwise Lincoln would have declared ALL the slaves to be freed, no?

[Lilllabettt]

your post is boringly obtuse.  Sorry, but I am not suffering fools this morning. I just said emancipation was a military necessity. 

 

Apparently it is not obvious: when you are engaged in war, and people on your side begin talking of surrender or mutiny, that is an emergency and  whatever draconian steps you take to correct it will be framed as military necessities.  Suspension of habeas corpus was justified by the government as a military necessity to save the Union.  The people of the North rallied and cheered the Proclamation not because it made them suddenly give up their virulent racism but because they were led to believe it would cripple the South, end the war and save the Union. The original and primary goal of the war was to save the Union. It was for that purpose that the American people poured out their blood and treasure at an unprecedented scale: to. save. the. Union.

 

That is the entire point.

 

A society with the historical memory of fighting and winning the Civil War will never accept secession as legal. To believe otherwise is to live in fantasy land.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[KnightofChrist]

To save the Union and win the war the Union disgracefully committed numerous war crimes. This bloody violent war is no moral basis for just law. Unjust law is no law at all. The North's ability to savagely burn, rape and pillage the South has not settled the matter of whether or not men have a right to form better and more perfect unions by breaking away from old imperfect ones.

Edited February 2, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Lilllabettt]

oh boo-hoo. Southern indignation at Northern crimes against humanity. That's rich.

 

All your angst cannot alter the reality that secession is illegal in the United States. Not paying income tax is also illegal, despite what that late night infomercial says. There is no "winning strategy" or "neat trick" for taking on the IRS or backing out of the Union or riding a purple unicorn. There will never be an act of secession that is not met with overwhelming military force. Right or wrong have nothing to do with it. It's reality. You can't change it by holding your breath or stomping your feet or yelling its not fair or closing your eyes and wishing real hard.

[Aloysius]

Right and wrong have everything to do with it. the murderous enemies of humanity called the federal government need to be peacefully resisted in every possible way. including spreading the ideals of liberty. without a right to secede there is no liberty. it is not an argument to say that's just the way it is, we need to talk about the way it should be because we're supposed to be citizens of a representative republic so its only the way it is if we accept it. and we shouldn't accept it.

[Lilllabettt]

You think secession should be legal. Fine. Secession has been illegal for 150 years. If you want it to be legal you will have to change that. That's your problem.