The CSA (Opinions)

[Arakhor]

If something is made illegal by the government, that's irrelevant? You'll soon pick up a criminal record as large as your ego, then.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The third Article of Confederation.

But not the constitution. Which is what we have now.

If something is made illegal by the government, that's irrelevant? You'll soon pick up a criminal record as large as your ego, then.

Oh, I'll follow them to stay out of jail, but there still illegal. For instance, I won't buy a gun off the black market, even though the government making gun laws (In the US) is illegal.

 

[Dachs]

But not the constitution. Which is what we have now.

The Constitution did not change the legal status of the action of secession.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The Constitution did not change the legal status of the action of secession.

10th Amendment makes it legal. What the process is can be debated, but there is a legal one.

 

[Dachs]

10th Amendment makes it legal. What the process is can be debated, but there is a legal one.

The 10th Amendment doesn't affect the status of secession under the "more perfect union" argument.

Furthermore, there are significant problems with arrogating the "right" of secession - as if secession must automatically be considered a "right" - to "the states, or to the people". Why the states and not the people? Couldn't one also use the 10th Amendment to justify stating that only a national referendum could legally permit secession, because "the people" would be thereby consulted? Legally, the traitor states jumped the gun and interpreted the laws in their own way. They exacerbated the situation by attempting to inter elements of the federal army, by seizing federal property, and by firing weapons on federal troops. There are no grounds on which to stand a defense of the traitor states.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The 10th Amendment doesn't affect the status of secession under the "more perfect union" argument.

Furthermore, there are significant problems with arrogating the "right" of secession - as if secession must automatically be considered a "right" - to "the states, or to the people". Why the states and not the people? Couldn't one also use the 10th Amendment to justify stating that only a national referendum could legally permit secession, because "the people" would be thereby consulted? Legally, the traitor states jumped the gun and interpreted the laws in their own way. They exacerbated the situation by attempting to inter elements of the federal army, by seizing federal property, and by firing weapons on federal troops. There are no grounds on which to stand a defense of the traitor states.

Its ticklish and debatable, but its debatable and not clear.

My personal opinion is secession is not necessarily legal or illegal, but the Constitution is like a contract, if the Federal government breaks it the states can, and should, back out (Which is what they should do right now.)

 

[Dachs]

It is no longer debatable because the Supreme Court of the United States has handed down a decision on the application of the 10th Amendment to secession.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is no longer debatable because the Supreme Court of the United States has handed down a decision on the application of the 10th Amendment to secession.

SCOTUS Decision is arguably invalid.

Its like, what if the Supreme Court said "Well, the right to freedom of speech only applies to groups who get permission from the government" that would be invalid (Its the same as what they almost did to the second one.

I understand succession is more arguable then that, but SCOTUS having the right to interpret the constitution is a mistake in the modern day as they are in coalition with the federal government. The states should decide.

 

[Dachs]

If you think the ruling is wrong, challenge it. Or are you too much of a wuss to do it, wuss?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you think the ruling is wrong, challenge it. Or are you too much of a wuss to do it, wuss?

Or take up arms and fight. Who's the wuss now?

Its a messed up system, if SCOTUS makes a wrong decision, you challenge it before... SCOTUS?

 

[Dachs]

Okay, then. Go for it! Take up arms against the vile federal prohibition of secession! Have fun. Send me a postcard!

As if the Supreme Court were one monolithic entity throughout history that never changes in composition or legal outlook...

 

[Hallard]

I understand succession is more arguable then that, but SCOTUS having the right to interpret the constitution is a mistake in the modern day as they are in coalition with the federal government. The states should decide.

Have you ever heard of Marbury v. Madison? Since 1803 it's been decided that it is the Court's Constitutional Authority to decide what the law is, that includes the Constitution itself. SCOTUS's authority to interpret the constitution is a bedrock principle of our Union and hardly a modern day mistake.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That was also an incorrect ruling.

Also, it goes back to what I initially said. SCOTUS affirming SCOTUS rights, it doesn't work.

 

[Hallard]

It has worked for over two hundred years. Sure you believe it is wrong, but the point is it's a bedrock principle and I think, on the whole, it works well and better than the alternatives (such as Congress not being restrained because anything they do would be, by definition, Constitutional for instance).

 

[GhostWriter16]

It has worked for over two hundred years. Sure you believe it is wrong, but the point is it's a bedrock principle and I think, on the whole, it works well and better than the alternatives (such as Congress not being restrained because anything they do would be, by definition, Constitutional for instance).

I agree except the fact that Congress DOES do whatever it wants and SCOTUS helps them.

Its time for the states and the people to take action, whatever it takes.

 

[Hallard]

Also in the words of Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" The Court's interpretations are limited by their inability to enforce them itself. It's part of that checks and balances thing.

 

[Dachs]

Its time for the states and the people to take action, whatever it takes.

put your money where your mouth is

 

[GhostWriter16]

Also in the words of Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" The Court's interpretations are limited by their inability to enforce them itself. It's part of that checks and balances thing.

The thing worked until the guy in your avatar came along. FDR made it a whole Welfare State and we've never recovered.

 

[Hallard]

I agree except the fact that Congress DOES do whatever it wants and SCOTUS helps them.

Its time for the states and the people to take action, whatever it takes.

I completely disagree. We are no where near such a need. You seem to forget that this is still a democratically elected government. Until it stops being that I don't see the need to take up arms. I get that you don't like what the government is doing, but that is part of being on the losing side of the election. If we started taking up arms every time the other side in power did something we didn't like we'd be no better off that any third world country.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Something about welfare and a slap at FDR

Fixed.