That you must blatantly make up arguments for and distort the arguments of the other side illustrates that you understand the legitimacy of our arguments. If our actual arguments were so stupid, you would have written them down so that others could see the actual comparison to your own arguments are marvel at the stupidity ours when placed against your own. You chose to make up and grossly simplify arguments instead, but rather than reaching down to your level and doing the same to you, I'm just going to re-post our actual arguments since I'm confident that they stand better against your actual ones - without manipulation.
Texas v. White has probably been posted in this thread over 20 times. If he doesn't remember now, he's probably not going to acknowledge it.
It was a link, for a reason.
This is the argument. Feel free to critique it. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. PS Sorry for no paragraph breaks!
Gotcha. Historically there have been some pretty tortured court decsions and writings.
theplaydrive said:
Debunked what? You gave your opinion that Supreme Court was wrong. Pro-life people do the same thing for Roe v. Wade everyday. The Supreme Court ruled abortion legal and it ruled secession illegal. No amount of opining makes secession legal. The Court already made its decision.
You dismiss what you don't like. This is noted.
The arrogance of these people is unmet. The idea that one can say "debunked" and have it be so is laughable. Almost as laughable as believing one can say, "This is my land" and have it be so.
You get what you put out.
Already did. You argued the flag only means X where X is what Southerners claim it is. If it only means X, it can't mean Y where Y is what non-Southerners are arguing it is.
What is this question? It means everything that it is just like the Confederate flag does - good and bad.
They claim is that it was really about tariffs and railroads and the Northern disrespect for the Constitution particularly as it relates to tariffs. This is ridiculous as South Carolina who was the main state who opposed the Tariff of 1828 (which is the tariff in question) and it listed ONLY slavery and the North's hostility towards slavery as its reason for secession in its official declaration of secession.