- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,658
- Reaction score
- 3,773
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
nor will he ever be able to prove such an alleged "explicit prohibition"... because one does not exist.
he can, however, argue about implied prohibition, but not explicit.
it's rather humorous to me that folks think the Confederate states should have followed the Constitution.. a document they just separated themselves from.
it's akin to saying an immigrant from Zimbabwe should adhere to Zimbabwe's laws after he dissolved his Zimbabwean citizenship.
"hey!.. you guys can't leave... the Constitution says you can't"
"umm bro.. the Constitution doesn't count for us.. we got our own now... those are your laws, these are ours"
"the Constitution says you can't though"
"having a comprehension problem today?... the Constitution doesn't govern us anymore.. we bailed on it"
"we'll take it to the supreme court then"
" oh that's awesome... let's take it to a court who is mandated to judge us by a set of laws that do not pertain to us.. i'm sure we'll get a fair trial there!"
" but they are the grand arbiter of the supreme law of the land..."
" yeah.. the supreme law of the land that we just removed ourselves from..."
" but you can't remove yourself from it.."
"why?"
"cuz the Constitution says you can't"
" <facepalm>"
makes me giggle just thinking about it....
What makes me giggle is rednecks thinking that claiming federal property as their own is legal. The pro slavery insurgents had no right to claim sovereign american land as their own.