Texas secession?

Henrin · May 23, 2012

dabateman said:
Actually, the moron is the person that reads the judges statement to mean that the law is informed by the pledge when clearly the judge stated that the pledge is informed by the law. God forbid Scalia use an example. :roll:

God forbid he actually reference how the pledge of alliance means anything and how it was CREATED AFTER Texas v. White that didn't reflect the LAW.

He is a moron.

The pledge of alliance is an ideal on a false reality.

dabateman · May 23, 2012

Henrin said:
God forbid he actually reference how the pledge of alliance means anything and how it was CREATED AFTER Texas v. White that didn't reflect the LAW.

He is a moron.

The pledge of alliance is an ideal on a false reality.

Actually Texas v. White held that states could not unilaterally leave the union. That became the law. The pledge coming after Texas v. White PROVES it couldn't be the way you say. The pledge is reflective of the law.

It's reflective, not representative... there's a difference.

Nuance. It's important.

eace

Quantrill · May 23, 2012

Somerville said:
In my opinion, it was those Southern elitists who voted for secession in 1860 and today it includes those who continue to deny the reality of the period and seemingly advocate a return to that time when a segment of the population wasn't considered fully human. It definitely includes those who continue to fly a flag that represents those 19th C traitors as they promote racial division, advocate for the destruction of the United States and in some cases act in violent manner against the legitimate government.

So that is who I think the "traitors are now"

The reality of the period was that the Constitution supported the South. Not the North. The South was not triator to the Constitution. The North was.

Thus the Confederate flag is not one of treason, but patriotism. Just not the yankee patriotism which ignored the Constitution.

You see, when the South lost, America lost. But, the yankees won. The traitors.

Quantrill

Henrin · May 23, 2012

dabateman said:
Actually Texas v. White held that states could not unilaterally leave the union. That became the law. The pledge coming after Texas v. White PROVES it couldn't be the way you say. The pledge is reflective of the law.

It's reflective, not representative... there's a difference.

Nuance. It's important. eace

Except the law of land never changed and it still holds that secession is legal. A horrible ruling might allow idiots to claim otherwise, but it doesn't change the reality of what is written.

In order for him to claim that the pledge of alliance is accurate he actually has to defend Texas v. White and he can't possibly do that without looking like a fool.

Quantrill · May 23, 2012

Moot said:
"Provided" the state of S. Carolina retained jurisdiction for service of civil and criminal process. Nearly all the lands that were ceded to the US government by S. Carolina had this Service to Process clause. See.....

There was nothing in the 1836 SC resolution that said the US government had to go and everything that said it could stay. If you think otherwise, then prove it.

Yes, I can see why the Fort wasn't in use because...THEY WERE STILL BUILDING IT!!! ROTFL.

South Carolina retained jursdiction. They still existed. The Federal govts right to the land no longer did. In other words, we are leaving your union and you need to leave our land.

Don't need anything in the 1836 resolution to say anything. The land was not the Federal govts. Its belonged to S. Carolina. When she seceded, then the Fed. govt has to leave. They are tresspassing.

Still building it. Since 1829. Unfinished maybe. Oh yeah, it offered a lot of protection.

Quantrill

Somerville · May 23, 2012

Quantrill said:
The reality of the period was that the Constitution supported the South. Not the North. The South was not triator to the Constitution. The North was.

Thus the Confederate flag is not one of treason, but patriotism. Just not the yankee patriotism which ignored the Constitution.

You see, when the South lost, America lost. But, the yankees won. The traitors.

Quantrill

Like I wrote - neoconfederates are traitors to the United States of America - you claim to be a "True Amurrican" while verbally attacking the nation as it is, as the Constitution formed it.

The interpretation of the Constitution by the modern confederate movement is based on false history and a sense of white supremacy with next to zero legal justification.

Quantrill · May 23, 2012

Moot said:
It ain't never gonna happen.....

Thank you Connery for first posting this on page one. lol

Yes, thanks for that. Its proof that war settled the secession issue, not the Constitution. Proof that yankees rejected the Constitution until they could subdue the South. And then they could rewrite the Constitution. And man o man you better obey now. Because they had their hands in writing it. Bring up higher law now and see where it gets you. There is no end to their hypocrisy.

Oh yeah. Whose the traitors now?

Quantrill

Henrin · May 23, 2012

Somerville said:
Like I wrote - neoconfederates are traitors to the United States of America - you claim to be a "True Amurrican" while verbally attacking the nation as it is, as the Constitution formed it.

Lol and yet every time you people try to defend Texas v. White the reality of what those words mean and the lack of power behind them shoot you in the face.

The interpretation of the Constitution by the modern confederate movement is based on false history and a sense of white supremacy with next to zero legal justification.

:lamo

Quantrill · May 23, 2012

dabateman said:
Actually Texas v. White held that states could not unilaterally leave the union. That became the law. The pledge coming after Texas v. White PROVES it couldn't be the way you say. The pledge is reflective of the law.

It's reflective, not representative... there's a difference.

Nuance. It's important. eace

First of all, that was 1869. After the War between the States. During the Reconstruction years and Courts. Which were puposefully seated with yankee partisans. This decision plays a role now. It played no role then prior to the war. Second of all, give the exact quote that indicates that states could not leave the union.

Quantrill

Quantrill · May 23, 2012

Somerville said:
Like I wrote - neoconfederates are traitors to the United States of America - you claim to be a "True Amurrican" while verbally attacking the nation as it is, as the Constitution formed it.

The interpretation of the Constitution by the modern confederate movement is based on false history and a sense of white supremacy with next to zero legal justification.

Pay attention. We are discussing the war between the states. I know you would like to change the subject to present day because you have nothing to show the south was traitor in that war. And if the South was not traitor in that day, then we who are Southern are not traitor today either.

You say false history. Yet you offer nothing to prove it. Did the Constitution protect slavery? Did the Supreme Court uphold the Southernors right to slavery? How did the South disobey the Constitution?

Quantrill

dabateman · May 23, 2012

Henrin said:
Except the law of land never changed and it still holds that secession is legal. A horrible ruling might allow idiots to claim otherwise, but it doesn't change the reality of what is written.

In order for him to claim that the pledge of alliance is accurate he actually has to defend Texas v. White and he can't possibly do that without looking like a fool.

In matters of statehood and such, it is good law. It was overruled only in relation to bonds. I'm not defending it other than of course saying that because it hasn't been overruled as to the constitutional matters we're discussing, it's still good law and accordingly the law of the land.

dabateman · May 23, 2012

Quantrill said:
First of all, that was 1869. After the War between the States. During the Reconstruction years and Courts. Which were puposefully seated with yankee partisans. This decision plays a role now. It played no role then prior to the war. Second of all, give the exact quote that indicates that states could not leave the union.

Quantrill

Right, coming back the states were forced to accept it. And that was done. Sad story... now they can get over it.

Thrilla · May 23, 2012

Somerville said:
Yes, under our present system - NO state can secede

i'm what you mean to say is that "no state can legally unilaterally secede"...because "no state can secede " is not accurate.

there are methods for successful secession available to any state.

rocket88 · May 23, 2012

C

Centinel said:
So we have the peace treaty between Great Britain and her former colonies in which is is documented that they are now free, sovereign, and independent states. But you guys don't take this as evidence that they regarded themselves and each other as such. Perhaps this one document was a fluke.

How about the articles of confederation: "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." So we have documentation that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. The use of the word "retain" seems to indicate that sovereignty, independence, and freedom are preexisting attributes of each of the states.

So yourConstitutional argument isn't even based on the Constitution? The wording of a treaty doesn't mean much as far as the "right to secede."

Centinel · May 23, 2012

Somerville said:
Probably a mistake but as "colonies" the various groups that became states following the Revolution were in no shape, fashion or form "free, sovereign, and independent states"

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Moot · May 23, 2012

Quantrill said:
"importation" Big word. Slavery was legal and protectected by the Constitution. You just could no longer import slaves.

Quantrill

rocket88 said:
No, it was agreed that the foreign slave trade wouldn't be touched for 20 years, and the foreign slave trade was banned. The domestic slave trade and slavery were both completely legal.

Okay, I concede both your points. However, it does appear that after Article 1, section 9 expired congress could ban slavery and I'm not seeing where slavery is protected after 1808....

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.
The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

MoSurveyor · May 24, 2012

Centinel said:
We're not talking about the constitution. We are discussing whether or not the 13 colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states prior to the constitution.

I've already stated that the wording of the Declaration of Independence did not lead me to believe that.

MoSurveyor · May 24, 2012

Henrin said:
They sure has hell didn't reverse it or say otherwise.

Did/do we continue to collect Federal taxes based on land value? Or is there somewhere in the Constitution that says the Fed can't do that?

MoSurveyor · May 24, 2012

Quantrill said:
South Carolina retained jursdiction. They still existed. The Federal govts right to the land no longer did. In other words, we are leaving your union and you need to leave our land.

Don't need anything in the 1836 resolution to say anything. The land was not the Federal govts. Its belonged to S. Carolina. When she seceded, then the Fed. govt has to leave. They are tresspassing.

Still building it. Since 1829. Unfinished maybe. Oh yeah, it offered a lot of protection.

Quantrill

If the land belonged to SC then there would have been no reason to add in the 'serve processes' clause.

Moot · May 24, 2012

Wake said:
I haven't read all 600+ posts, but what do you think of this? Do you think no state can ever secede from the USA?

I'm not sure, but I'm leaning toward the notion that the Civil War settled the issue once and for all. After all, the south did lose and the winner decides the terms of surrender. But apparently, the war started before the southern states could seceed and Lincoln treated it as an insurrection or rebellion rather than a declared war. But I'm still reading.....

McLaughlin: Constitutional History of the United States (1936)

MoSurveyor · May 24, 2012

Centinel said:
We're not talking about the constitution. We are discussing whether or not the 13 colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states prior to the constitution.

OK, having just read the Articles of Confederation again - it's been awhile - these are the last two paragraphs:

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

(emphasis added)
So, not once, not twice, not even three times, but FOUR full times do they assert that this is a perpetual Union.

LizardofOz · May 24, 2012

TOJ said:
Are they different than KY assholes? In my experience, KY has a much higher percentage in that category.

.

Well, in Kentucky we don't make it a game to give yourself a heart attack at a truck stop with some big ass steak, we don't want to build a big ass fence around our border for any reason, Daniel Boone did all kinds of bad ass **** here first, and everybody plays sweet rifts on electric guitars all the time. All you guys got is Hank Hill and George Bush. Same guy really. Plus our college basketball beats the **** out of yours. Taco Bell, KFC, Bluegrass music all from us. Texas is a bunch of retards that don't know that most of their hard work is done by Mexicans. Here, we have a good understanding with that.

Btw I'm just ****in with you I don't really care.

Moot · May 24, 2012

Quantrill said:
South Carolina retained jurisdiction.

It only retained Service to Process jurisdiction.

They still existed. The Federal govts right to the land no longer did. In other words, we are leaving your union and you need to leave our land.

What year are you talking about? It looks like your talking about 1861 instead of 1838 when S. Carolina ceded the land to the US government. That might be where your confusion lies.

Don't need anything in the 1836 resolution to say anything. The land was not the Federal govts. Its belonged to S. Carolina. When she seceded, then the Fed. govt has to leave. They are tresspassing.

Still building it. Since 1829. Unfinished maybe. Oh yeah, it offered a lot of protection.

Quantrill

The Constitution is all about respecting contracts and recognizing property rights and the US has a 1838 contract that ceded the land to it and that didn't go away just because S. Carolina decided to secede in 1861.

Interesting, apparently Fort Sumter was built on a man made island. The rocks and land fill came by ship from New England. So whatever sovereignty S.Carolina had was under water. lol Technically, wouldn't the land belong to New England? lol jk

upsideguy · May 24, 2012

Talk, talk, talk and no action. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I just want to know if there is anything we can do to help? I know a great many of us, though we might miss Texas, we would nonetheless be happy to do what we could to help.

Moot · May 24, 2012

Texas seceding is all talk, talk, talk.

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

Anytime they want

Bad times only

No way

I don't know

Other

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Pragmatic Idealist