USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)

[GhostWriter16]

The Confederacy had no right to secede because they lost the war. Might makes right. Prove me wrong.

Actually, this is rather my point

Secession is illegal because the North won. But I don't consider that legitimate reasoning.

I still think the CSA had a moral right to do what they did.

 

[JohnRM]

The Confederacy had no right to secede because they lost the war. Might makes right. Prove me wrong.

Might only makes what-actually-happens.

If a guy is stronger than his wife, has the capability, and does beat the living piss out of her for no good reason, it doesn't make it right, but it happened. The very fact that it wasn't right didn't stop it from happening and the fact that it happened doesn't make it right. Of course, I think you already know this.

 

[Masada]

The Confederacy had no right to secede because they lost the war. Might makes right. Prove me wrong.

... Nazi Germany invaded Poland. They lost the war. But that wasn't what made it wrong.

Secession is illegal because the North won. But I don't consider that legitimate reasoning.

... No. Secession is illegal because the Supreme Court said so. It might have said so after the fact but then it wasn't like it was the Supreme Court's fault that the traitors didn't want to engage with normal political/legal processes before resorting to shooting.

 

[GhostWriter16]

... No. Secession is illegal because the Supreme Court said so. It might have said so after the fact but then it wasn't like it was the Supreme Court's fault that the traitors didn't want to engage with normal political/legal processes before resorting to shooting.

Problem in reasoning, SCOTUS does not have authority to make anything illegal, only to explain the Constitution. Hence my point. SCOTUS can't just say something and make it true, or they'd be dictators. SCOTUS didn't have constitutional reasoning. And them using the words "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional" doesn't count as good reasoning.

And besides, as entry into the United States was voluntary, it stands to logical reasoning they are also free to go.

 

[Masada]

Problem in reasoning, SCOTUS does not have authority to make anything illegal, only to explain the Constitution.

It explained the Constitution in terms that made secession illegal.

SCOTUS can't just say something and make it true, or they'd be dictators. SCOTUS didn't have constitutional reasoning. And them using the words "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional" doesn't count as good reasoning.

Take it to the Supreme Court and dazzle them with your reasoning. Until then respect the Constitution or git out.

And besides, as entry into the United States was voluntary, it stands to logical reasoning they are also free to go.

No it doesn't. Obviously so. Re: Texas v. White.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Take it to the Supreme Court to decide if SCOTUS' actions are legal? That fails.

Or the states that want to leave can just give the middle finger and leave. And I don't care what the heck SCOTUS says unless they actually interpret the Constitution which they don't at present.

 

[Cutlass]

Take it to the Supreme Court to decide if SCOTUS' actions are legal? That fails.

Or the states that want to leave can just give the middle finger and leave. And I don't care what the heck SCOTUS says unless they actually interpret the Constitution which they don't at present.

So you reject the whole of the Constitution then. Good to know.

 

[Masada]

Take it to the Supreme Court to decide if SCOTUS' actions are legal? That fails.

That's what the Constitution would have you do, no? It seems to be a reasonable approach to the situation, Dred Scott v. & Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson seem to be rather instructive in this regard.

Or the states that want to leave can just give the middle finger and leave. And I don't care what the heck SCOTUS says unless they actually interpret the Constitution which they don't at present.

Yes, I get it. You hate the Constitution and wish to turn it on its head for treasonable purposes because you personally think something is wrong. That's most disgusting form of judicial activism imaginable seeing as it ain't based on law or good constitutional understanding but on personal opinion.

 

[FriendlyFire]

And the award for most confusing post goes to... you! 1992 called and it left a message for you saying that Russia did in fact abandon communism and replaced it with a flawed democracy, all pretty peacefully.

So much for Reagan, marshall plan, Vietnam, Korea, detenant, UN, solidarity
Afganistan and freedom fighters, containment, Nato, MAD and so on and so forth.

Apparently 150,000 casualties = not fighting communism

 

[History_Buff]

And besides, as entry into the United States was voluntary, it stands to logical reasoning they are also free to go.

No it doesn't. Watch, as I actually use logic to demonstrate why I feel this way:

I'd say its rather obvious that the States of the CSA thought it was legal to secede, since they did. I'd also say it's rather obvious that the Federal government, and by extension, the Northern States, believed it was illegal for them to secede. Logically then, we have a Controversy between two or more states, and one in which The United States (The Fed) is a party. You see where I'm going with this?

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that if one State wants to leave the Union, and one or more States or The Fed don't want it to, things have to be settled in the Court system, at which the Supreme Court is top dog. The States of the CSA made no attempt to do so, thus making their secession illegal. Texas v. White is just another nail in the coffin.

 

[Millman]

I hate to vehemetly attack politics this way but we do need to ask them the question. Are you going to help me or not?

I will somewhat answer my own question but it's not up to me to provide free legal insight all the time.

Who is it really up to to decide this? I think the object should do what it wants as long as it's not a clear and present danger.

I hate to god-mod or whatever but don't be surprised if a state, person, etc.,. exceeds the requirement of the constitution and/or any other document. And without being dangerous.

You should take my last points very seriously.

 

[bhsup]

and by extension, the Northern States, believed it was illegal for them to secede.

In the words of Jefferson to Lafayette: "During the war four of the Eastern States were only attached to the Union, like so many inanimate bodies to living men." But they went far beyond inaction. They called a Convention at Hartford, of which the proceedings were suppressed, but the object is well known; a flag appeared with five stripes, secession was threatened in the loudest terms, nor can there be a doubt in the mind of any one who studies the events of that period, that the New England States would have seceded from the Union had the war continued.


The State of Massachusetts has threatened, indeed, on four separate occasions to secede from the Union. First, in the debates referred to on the adjustment of the State debts; secondly, on the purchase of Louisiana and its admission into the Union; thirdly, during the war of 1813; and fourthly, on the annexation of Texas, when, we believe, one chamber of her legislature actually passed a vote of secession. On these occasions it was no mere act of excited individuals, but the general voice of the community. Yet this State is now the loudest in denouncing it, when inconvenient to herself; and a bastile is now said to be preparing in the vicinity of Boston, for the incarceration of those as political prisoners, who simply utter the opinions which, when it suited, this very State has so often and so vehemently expressed.

http://confederatereprint.com/constitutional_right_secession.php

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you reject the whole of the Constitution then. Good to know.

No, I just believe in the tenth amendment. SCOTUS does not have a right to make up laws. And in this case, its obvious what it means.

And states have no right to tell other states what to do.

http://confederatereprint.com/constitutional_right_secession.php

I thought that was interesting.

Secession is legal whoever does it.

 

[Cutlass]

No, I just believe in the tenth amendment. SCOTUS does not have a right to make up laws. And in this case, its obvious what it means.

And states have no right to tell other states what to do.

The only laws the courts have made up in recent decades are the Heller and Citizens United decisions.

 

[Millman]

No, I just believe in the tenth amendment. SCOTUS does not have a right to make up laws. And in this case, its obvious what it means.

And states have no right to tell other states what to do.

>> Are you ignoring the fact some states have higher standards for their citizens.

I thought that was interesting.

Secession is legal whoever does it.

>> You are assuming there's someone around to enforce this and commit this at all times. To elaborate why not let them succeed and see if they can rule themselves without federal and other state intervention.

That ties into setting a standard. If someone or something thinks they are capable of managing their own affairs then let them peacefully.

Even today we have a federal government and state governments that have billions in tax gaps. That's not enough to make wall street cringe.

 

[.Shane.]

http://confederatereprint.com/constitutional_right_secession.php

History Buff was wrong in his point, but that's not a particularly strong retort.

Kisses

 

[Millman]

All of this is the cost in keeping a private organization afloat that declares it's for the people. I might be stepping over the line here but what are they doing with my money?

 

[History_Buff]

History Buff was wrong in his point, but that's not a particularly strong retort.

Kisses

Am I wrong in my assumed attitudes of the parties, or is there a deeper Constitutional meaning I've misinterpreted?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The only laws the courts have made up in recent decades are the Heller and Citizens United decisions.

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.

 

[bhsup]

History Buff was wrong in his point, but that's not a particularly strong retort.

Kisses

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.