USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)

To say that the federal government does not have control over secession because the constitution does not explicitly grant it that power is to argue that we the people do not have the right to marry or have children because the constitution does not explicitly grant us that right. The constitution(like the bible) is vaguely worded so we won't take it literally.

-Nukeknockout

Wow, you really need to re-read the 10th. If a power is not listed, it is automatically a power of the States and the people, NOT the feds. So yes, in fact, the States and the people determine the right to marry because the Constitution is silent on it. The feds have no place in that discussion.

Thanks for helping prove my point :) Have a nice day!
 
Doesn't this argument also prevent the government from recognizing or allowing secession?
 
Not at all. The Constitution is totally silent on secession, which means the Feds have no business interfering if a State wants to secede. The Supreme Court screwed the pooch, any anyone with a brain should recognize this, unless they have a personal axe to grind and just get their jollies referring to States as traitors for exercising legitimate powers.
 
Not at all. The Constitution is totally silent on secession, which means the Feds have no business interfering if a State wants to secede. The Supreme Court screwed the pooch, any anyone with a brain should recognize this, unless they have a personal axe to grind and just get their jollies referring to States as traitors for exercising legitimate powers.

:goodjob:

And I seriously hate how, whichever side you support in the Civil War, people continually shout out words like "Traitor!" Can we call the Founders traitors as well? If so, you should send your tax money to King George III fine with me. If not, then the Confederates weren't traitors as well. They may have been traitors according to England/The North, but that's crap.
 
I'm not even going to respond to a lot of this crap.

Guys, it was 150 years ago. LET IT GO.

I'm a Virginian, but I hate the CSA and everything it stood for, and I think that no one has the right to secede from the Union.

It's simple logic: if some hard-line communists took over Washngton and Oregon states and fired at docked US ships, what would you recommend the government do?

-L
 
I would ask this as well.

But regardless of the legalities of secession at the time(it has been declared unconstitutional now), the "CSA" started the war, and the USA defended itself. Like when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

-Nukeknockout
 
VRWCAgent said:
Also, regardless, it was after the fact so this ruling doesn't mean squat for 1861.

Well of course it doesn't. The South wasn't interested in such civilities as Courts or even waiting for the President to be sworn in, let alone giving him the benefit of a spell at the helm to see what his legislative agenda might have been before rebelling.
 
I would ask this as well.

But regardless of the legalities of secession at the time(it has been declared unconstitutional now), the "CSA" started the war, and the USA defended itself. Like when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

-Nukeknockout

I don't really care about what the heck SCOTUS says about it. The Constitution < a few stupid judges that make a living interpreting something that doesn't need any interpretation. Stop twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. If you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, be my guess, but stop twisting it to your own devices!:mad:

@Lighthearter- If they asked us to leave, and gave us time to do so, but we refused, they'd be right.

Now, if our government was less oppressive then theirs (And I'd assume it would be) we could declare war on a freedom operation like Iraq, but we can't stop them from seceding.

EDIT: And maybe the Union could DOW the CSA, but then they'd have to recognize them, and making a territory into the US by force is not recognized in the Constitution.
 
Not at all. The Constitution is totally silent on secession, which means the Feds have no business interfering if a State wants to secede.
Yes, it's also silent on the issue of granting any legal recognition to secession. Therefor, according to this argument, acknowledging the seccesion would have been an equal overstep of their constitutional mandate. The Federal Government would not have the power to act any differently towards the southern states in light of secession, and would have to continue to fulfill it's federal mandate in these states.
 
I don't really care about what the heck SCOTUS says about it. The Constitution < a few stupid judges that make a living interpreting something that doesn't need any interpretation. Stop twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. If you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, be my guess, but stop twisting it to your own devices!:mad:

@Lighthearter- If they asked us to leave, and gave us time to do so, but we refused, they'd be right.

Now, if our government was less oppressive then theirs (And I'd assume it would be) we could declare war on a freedom operation like Iraq, but we can't stop them from seceding.

So when will you do the same thing?
 
Domination3000 said:
I don't really care about what the heck SCOTUS says about it. The Constitution < a few stupid judges that make a living interpreting something that doesn't need any interpretation. Stop twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. If you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, be my guess, but stop twisting it to your own devices!

Conclusion: You hate the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
 
I don't really care about what the heck SCOTUS says about it. The Constitution < a few stupid judges that make a living interpreting something that doesn't need any interpretation. Stop twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. If you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, be my guess, but stop twisting it to your own devices!:mad:

that's a pretty serious accusation.

The Supreme Court is a part of our government, established by the constitution, tasked with interpreting it. The constitution is meant to be interpreted, and it needs to be interpreted(otherwise, why would such basic rights as marriage and having kids not be explicitly guaranteed)

also, stop ranting and actually answer me like a reasonable human being. you avoided my argument, and went on some off-topic rant about the Supreme Court

-Nukeknockout

EDIT:+1
 
@Lighthearter- If they asked us to leave, and gave us time to do so, but we refused, they'd be right.

Now, if our government was less oppressive then theirs (And I'd assume it would be) we could declare war on a freedom operation like Iraq, but we can't stop them from seceding.

EDIT: And maybe the Union could DOW the CSA, but then they'd have to recognize them, and making a territory into the US by force is not recognized in the Constitution.

Thank you for proving my point. The Confederate government was highly oppressive, enough to warrant a freedom action. We annexed it simply because constitutionally we are given the right to annex new territories in wartime, and made them back into states later. And if we'd recognized their existence as a nation, in addition to violating the spirit of the constitution, England and France would have landed on us so fast it's not even funny.

Let's assume that this communist state in the NorthWest is actually highly representative. Don't we have the right to defend ourselves if they open fire on our ships? Same as Pearl Harbor, as 1812, as WWI.

-L
 
that's a pretty serious accusation.

The Supreme Court is a part of our government, established by the constitution, tasked with interpreting it. The constitution is meant to be interpreted, and it needs to be interpreted(otherwise, why would such basic rights as marriage and having kids not be explicitly guaranteed)

also, stop ranting and actually answer me like a reasonable human being. you avoided my argument, and went on some off-topic rant about the Supreme Court

-Nukeknockout

EDIT:+1

Well sure there are plenty of things that need interpretation, but interpretation =/= making things up out of your rear.

For instance, the Bible is meant to be interpreted obviously, and you believe in the Bible doesn't mean that you think a Beast is going to come out of the sea literally. However, you can't just make stuff up, there needs to be a viable interpretation.

The Second Amendment can literally mean nothing else other than "You have the right to keep and bear arms" anything else is making stuff up. The tenth amendment clearly says "If it doesn't tell the Feds they can do it, they can't." There's no other way to take those. If SCOTUS can't handle that, then maybe states should start seceding and taking up arms again, and prove to them that making crap up doesn't make it true.

Secession is legal according to Constitutional law. SCOTUS rambling and using judicial activism doesn't change that.

@Lighthearter- The North wasn't fair to blacks either, and the Confederacy wasn't oppressive to white males. If it was an invasion to liberate the slaves, and not for power, I'd support it. I am glad it happened BECAUSE it freed the slaves, but that doesn't make me support the North's actions. I am glad Rome persecuted Christians because it allowed Christendom to grow, but that doesn't mean I approve of their actions.

As for the Communist government, if they allowed us to leave, and we refused, they would be within their rights to attack.

Also, I'm fairly certain that annexing territories by military force to make them into states is illegal.
 
Dom, all of your examples take issues of fierce controversy and debate and label them as "obvious", with the side you happen not to agree with "making things up out of their rear". Kudos on the the circumlocutory way of avoiding saying any naughty words by the way.

If there's an honest to Cthulhu debate on what a passage is trying to say, that by definition means that the issue is not transparent or obvious.
 
Well sure there are plenty of things that need interpretation, but interpretation =/= making things up out of your rear.

For instance, the Bible is meant to be interpreted obviously, and you believe in the Bible doesn't mean that you think a Beast is going to come out of the sea literally. However, you can't just make stuff up, there needs to be a viable interpretation.

The Second Amendment can literally mean nothing else other than "You have the right to keep and bear arms" anything else is making stuff up. The tenth amendment clearly says "If it doesn't tell the Feds they can do it, they can't." There's no other way to take those. If SCOTUS can't handle that, then maybe states should start seceding and taking up arms again, and prove to them that making crap up doesn't make it true.

Secession is legal according to Constitutional law. SCOTUS rambling and using judicial activism doesn't change that.

@Lighthearter- The North wasn't fair to blacks either, and the Confederacy wasn't oppressive to white males. If it was an invasion to liberate the slaves, and not for power, I'd support it. I am glad it happened BECAUSE it freed the slaves, but that doesn't make me support the North's actions. I am glad Rome persecuted Christians because it allowed Christendom to grow, but that doesn't mean I approve of their actions.

As for the Communist government, if they allowed us to leave, and we refused, they would be within their rights to attack.

Also, I'm fairly certain that annexing territories by military force to make them into states is illegal.

To the first: a friend of mine told me that the constitution is like the bible, you can't just pick a part to believe, it's all or nothing. The Supreme Court of the United States is the court from which our entire Judiciary branch is patterned. To claim it is simply doing whatever the heck it feels like and needs to be removed/ignored is saying that the Judiciary branch of our 3-part government needs to be removed/ignored. Since the Judiciary branch was established by the constitution, if you believe it needs to be removed, then you do not believe in the constitution, and are using it for your own purposes.

To the part addressed to my brother: The North was MORE fair to blacks than the south. As for the south's lack of oppression to white males, why the hell does that matter unless you are rascist or something?! merely trying to understand.

That they would have the right to attack does not remove our right to return fire.

What do you think happened with Japan, Germany, Guam, The Philippines and Panama? sure we didn't make them into states, but they were territories for some time. And then there's Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is voting on becoming a state, and Hawaii is a state. They were both annexed by military force.

So what you are saying is that the United States has had no right to engage in any war throughout it's entire history? That's the closest thing to a summary I have.

-Nukeknockout(final response)
 
Dom, all of your examples take issues of fierce controversy and debate and label them as "obvious", with the side you happen not to agree with "making things up out of their rear". Kudos on the the circumlocutory way of avoiding saying any naughty words by the way.

If there's an honest to Cthulhu debate on what a passage is trying to say, that by definition means that the issue is not transparent or obvious.

Either that or the liberals just want it to mean what they want it to mean. Doesn't change the wording. Most people don't care what the Founders said. They are fallible, but their government is our government, so amend the Constitution if you like, but don't make crap up and call it a valid interpretation.

To the first: a friend of mine told me that the constitution is like the bible, you can't just pick a part to believe, it's all or nothing. The Supreme Court of the United States is the court from which our entire Judiciary branch is patterned. To claim it is simply doing whatever the heck it feels like and needs to be removed/ignored is saying that the Judiciary branch of our 3-part government needs to be removed/ignored. Since the Judiciary branch was established by the constitution, if you believe it needs to be removed, then you do not believe in the constitution, and are using it for your own purposes.

Not ignored or removed, but weakened so that it is within the constitution. Judges are there to interpret what the Constitution SAYS, not what they want it to say.

And besides, the North won. Lincoln could have had the judges arrested if they said secession was legal. I don't think he would have, but Andrew Johnson sure would have.

To the part addressed to my brother: The North was MORE fair to blacks than the south. As for the south's lack of oppression to white males, why the hell does that matter unless you are rascist or something?! merely trying to understand.

No, just that both the North and South were racists. I'm not racist, but we're comparing racism to racism. The North did not care about black people, they only cared about the politics of it. Not that individuals didn't care about blacks, I believe Lincoln sure did, but the North as an entity did not.

That they would have the right to attack does not remove our right to return fire.

Then its a war of aggression. Take it at face value. Because their staying there was an act of war against the CSA.

What do you think happened with Japan, Germany, Guam, The Philippines and Panama? sure we didn't make them into states, but they were territories for some time. And then there's Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is voting on becoming a state, and Hawaii is a state. They were both annexed by military force.

But we eventually let (Most of) them go. We went into Germany, took out the Nazi regime, left. If we had went into the CSA, liberated the slaves, restored order, and left without forcing them to rejoin us, it would have been legal. But still a war of aggression.

I don't approve of keeping permanent territories though.

So what you are saying is that the United States has had no right to engage in any war throughout it's entire history? That's the closest thing to a summary I have.

No its not.
 
Either that or the liberals just want it to mean what they want it to mean. Doesn't change the wording. Most people don't care what the Founders said. They are fallible, but their government is our government, so amend the Constitution if you like, but don't make crap up and call it a valid interpretation.

When framing an argument, will you kindly refuse to use the words "liberal" or "conservative"?

Fun fact: "Liberals" in the revolutionary days were supporters of the revolution. "Conservatives" were the supporters of the crown.

And before you start talking about what the founding fathers said, I think you should research it, because they were nowhere near your worldview. For one, "their government" is not our government. They never intended this. Jefferson wouldn't have called for a revolution every 20 years if he thought we should have the same government as him.
 
When framing an argument, will you kindly refuse to use the words "liberal" or "conservative"?

Fun fact: "Liberals" in the revolutionary days were supporters of the revolution. "Conservatives" were the supporters of the crown.

And before you start talking about what the founding fathers said, I think you should research it, because they were nowhere near your worldview. For one, "their government" is not our government. They never intended this. Jefferson wouldn't have called for a revolution every 20 years if he thought we should have the same government as him.

I meant the Constitution, not the exact policies. But they wanted their Bill of Rights to stand. That's why its a Bill of RIGHTS.

As for your fun fact, we don't live in the 1700's.
 
The Confederacy had no right to secede because they lost the war. Might makes right. Prove me wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom