Revolution = Insurrection. Since the US government did NOT recognize the states as a Confederacy, it was considered illegal.
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation." - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection
The state suspension of the prewar government did require the US to put down the insurrection and reestablish the relationship between Texas and the original union. These duty's were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections exactly as LA stated.
Are you with me so far?
The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?[/QUOTE]
No Lives Matter
And, as an aside, reading the decision, there is a distinct lack of constitutional citation, the strongest of which is the "perpituity" clause or the articles and the "more perfect union" clause of the preamble. As has been discussed elsewhere, neither item carries any force of law. Given that, while obviously legally binding, is much like any number of other decisions that amount to a "well, because we said so".
Yes.... and as we know, they carry no legal force.The Federalist Papers are documents that explain the meanings behind some of the issues contained in the Constitution. The have been heavily cited, throughout history in SCOTUS cases regarding Consitutional law.
I note a particular lack of citation of said papers in the decision, BTW.
The states were not re-admitted to the Union. They were re-admitted to having representation in Congress, having pulled out of Congress, voluntarily, in 1861.
The states are entitled to these representitives according to the Constitition. No condition may be laid upon this entitlement, expecially not the demand that a state ratify a proposed amendment.
So, The Obama is pandering to them? With tax cuts that, if you listen to the partisan bigots that have opposed them ever since they were originally proposed, did nothing for them?
Who would have ever thougt YOU would have accused your Secular Messia of pandering.
and when the people who pay most of the taxes stop paying them by moving or hiding their assets the mob will starve
in England, fans were waiting to see World Champion Sprinter Bolt compete. However, the greedy British tax collectors had a novel concept. If Bolt runs 6 events a year and makes 6 million dollars globally in endorsements, appearance fees, etc, the Brits demanded that he be taxed on one 6th of his total income because one of those six events was to be in britain. Wisely, Bolt cancelled his appearance in England and the mob has less money to loot and the track fans won't get to see the most popular man in athletics
It wasn't a small group it was the Pennsylvania colony and what the hell does being Quaker have to do with it? You must be confusing the Quakers with the Puritans. Not all Quakers are even theists let alone Christians, some Quakers are secular humanists, some are Athiests, some Quakers are even Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans and Jews. So actually you would be correct that is what America is made up of.Now lets add in a small group of Quakers no less.
Yea that is what the US is made up off.
Civil war is not anarchy.No one said it did. It was a hell hole then, and now under anarchy it is still a hell hole.
"Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
...Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
Who says fraternity, says social order.
Who says government, says negation of the people;
Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy,
Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
Who says inequality, says antagonism;
Who says antagonism, says civil war;
From which it follows that who says government, says civil war. Yes, anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war. ” -- Anselme Bellegarrigue
You have not given one legitimate reason why not.I does not work on any kind of large scale. You seem to ignore this.
I'm an individualist not a communist thanks.I have an idea. Start a anarchist commune. Tell us how that works out for ya.