ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I'm still waiting on this answer on where it says the Federal Government has the power to recognize seccession.
USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
It's irrelevant. They do not have the Constitutional power to prevent it. That is obvious because the Constitution does not explicitly grant them that power.
Although, the power to form treaties with other foreign powers (which is what a seceded State becomes) I suppose would be an ability to recognize secession. But as I said, who gives a fig if they recognize it or not. They haven't the power to prevent it, recognition or no.
Although, the power to form treaties with other foreign powers (which is what a seceded State becomes) I suppose would be an ability to recognize secession. But as I said, who gives a fig if they recognize it or not. They haven't the power to prevent it, recognition or no.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
No they don't. But without the power to recognize it, they would still have the right and obligation to fullfill their federal mandate, in secceeding territories indefinitely.
So you are opposed to the right to bear arms? Good to know.
As for Citizen's United, they have freaking free speech too!
SCOTUS got those two (Mostly) right. What's sad about both is that they were 5-4. The four are freedom haters.
But neither one was based on a worrd of the Constitution.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Hugs back at ya
Btw, I do want to make one thing abundantly clear. I do not think the USA was out of bounds in attacking the Confederacy. As a sovereign nation, they have the right to wage war. Nothing says they couldn't attack another sovereign state. I just argue about how the North viewed the South, as a legitimate sovereign state or as illegitimate rebels.
So I assume that if China retook Taipei you'd be fine with that too?
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
So you do think China has the right to try, and if they succeed I assume you think they have the right to win and thus the right to unite all of China?
VRWC,
The Fed doesn't explicitly have the power to buy territory from another country. Yet, Jefferson bought the land you live in right now from France, in spite of the fact that prior to being president he argued exactly against that kind of thing.
So, I guess if you want to abide by your convictions you should seek French asylum.
The Fed doesn't explicitly have the power to buy territory from another country. Yet, Jefferson bought the land you live in right now from France, in spite of the fact that prior to being president he argued exactly against that kind of thing.
So, I guess if you want to abide by your convictions you should seek French asylum.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Heller- Based off the Second Amendment
Citizen's United- Based on the first amendment
Sounds better than- You can't secede, well, because you can't!
@VRWCA- That's fine with me, if they actually have a reason to wage war. Wanting power and to deny citizens what they want isn't a good reason. After the Emancipation Proclamation, they had a reason. Not before.
Even if they CAN technically declare war to invade, its stupid, and they need Congress to declare it.
@Shane- Technically, Lewis and Clark did it, not Jefferson. Jefferson only wanted New Orleans. Though they are allowed to make treaties with foreign nations. That's a treaty.
Wrong. The text of the decisions does not match the text of the Amendments.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Do you oppose the right to bear arms and to speak freely about politics? Or is your explanation deeper than that?
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
You are ignoring reality again. Heller said there is a right to self defense. That is not in the Constitution anywhere. Heller did not say you have a right to bear arms. It said you have a right to self defense. See the difference? Citizens United said that organizations are people. That is not in the Constitution anyplace.
So both are judicial activism.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Wow, so you are saying that we should have to let a murderer kill us if they try to? Read the ninth amendment. THAT is what SCOTUS is for.
It said no such thing, it simply gave the right for a business to run an anti-Hillary video.
Not really no.
What you continue to ignore is that in the English language words have meanings that you can't simply redefine in order to make them be what you want them to be. A 'strict constructionist' would not invent meanings for the Constitution the way you do.
Tacitusitis
King
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 839
Rights are for citizens. Corporations ain't citizens. The supreme court has been chronically wrong on this issue.
Not like it's the first time they've read the Constitution backwards and upside when powerful economic interests are at stake.
Not like it's the first time they've read the Constitution backwards and upside when powerful economic interests are at stake.
Jefferson, God bless him, was very protective of State's rights. He was overly concerned in this matter, however, as it was clearly Constitutional.
The Senate ratified the Louisiana Purchase Treaty on October 20rd, 1803 by a vote of 24-7.Article II said:
Still hugs!
You both, in point of fact, are great posters! But I think in this case, 1 point for Vr
My point, which you carefully danced around, is that his strict constructionism went out the window when he became president. L Purchase is just one example of many.
What I find most aggravating is that people act as if the 10th Amendment exists in some kind of vaccuum, where there is no competing, compelling, or over-riding arguments, of which there are many... and they happen to have legislative and judicial historical precedence.
But... that's why I mainly avoid threads like this. I find that, typically, people advocating the position that you do are intractable and immune to any kind of discussion that recognizes the whole of the question. That said, you do w/ great civility and humor.
In my case, I can see that their is, at least, an argument to be made for the legality of secession. But, I see compelling counter-arguments. And, in balance, I come down on the side of that it most likely was illegal, but once the shots started firing it didn't matter.
One idea that I have evolved from these threads is that (and this fits my pragmatic nature) in the end, it does NOT MATTER. There is a de facto reality that most people are ignoring, because its more fun to be pedantic than practical. And that is, that if they won, it would've been legal. Just like the US in 1776. If we had lost, the FF's would've all been hung as traitors. If the CSA had won, it wouldn't matter if the US could make an argument that it was illegal because the CSA had taken their independence and there nothing to do about it.
The solution is easy imo.
If a state wants to break off and declare independence then it becomes a private entity. The problem is would it be strong enough morally and ethically to support itself.
If it's concerning the U.S. alone would they practice witch-hunts, trials without due process, a government without checks and balances.
The underlying question is can it manage its affairs without annihilating itself and falling into oppression. If that happens it's most likely to be reclaimed by the federal government anyway.
If a state wants to break off and declare independence then it becomes a private entity. The problem is would it be strong enough morally and ethically to support itself.
If it's concerning the U.S. alone would they practice witch-hunts, trials without due process, a government without checks and balances.
The underlying question is can it manage its affairs without annihilating itself and falling into oppression. If that happens it's most likely to be reclaimed by the federal government anyway.
