State Sovereignty Question

Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
There are slavery, and I am sure, Dred Scott threads on this forum. I'll answer any questions you put on them, even if you start a new thread on Chief Justice Taney and Dredd Scott and his views on slavery.

But right now, it appears to me, you are trying to avoid answering my posts on the Chief Justice's stance on secession via the constitution, an entirely separate issue and the topic of this thread.

How about sticking to that before we run down any other rabbit holes?

It seems very obvious you are trying to dodge the central issue, so I will ask yet again: please show me an explicit prohibition against secession in the Constitution. If you can do that, perhaps we can proceed. If you cannot, I'm afraid we may be stuck.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
"The constitutional right of secession was not actually argued before the Court. "

Indeed it was not. So that's that.
You forgot the rulling that secession is a nullity because it is not in the Constitution.
Not only are we lacking your definition of 'secession' but it is null on arrival.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
You forgot the rulling that secession is a nullity because it is not in the Constitution.
Not only are we lacking your definition of 'secession' but it is null on arrival.
You have forgotten that the right of secession was not the question before the Court. That fact reduces the obiter dictum of Chase to worthless rot.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,135
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It seems very obvious you are trying to dodge the central issue, so I will ask yet again: please show me an explicit prohibition against secession in the Constitution. If you can do that, perhaps we can proceed. If you cannot, I'm afraid we may be stuck.
Perception is our apparent problem.

I agree with you and Chief Justice Taney that secession cannot be found in the constitution. You yourself have said over and over the words secession and secede cannot be found anywhere in the constitution, is that not correct?

So in what way, when a form or mode to exercise secession cannot be found anywhere within the constitution, does it's lack or mention give any credence whatsoever that it is a right reserved to states that are no longer sovereign since the adoption of that constitution?

Further, is it was a right reserved to the states, as no attempt made to implement this hidden, unmentioned right, via the Supreme Court or by the constitutional method of amendment? Why was war chosen vice this peaceful means, if secession was so obvious a constitutional option?

Because the Southern states knew they didn't have a snowflakes chance in hades to present ANY constitutional justification for unilateral secession.

Hence all that shooting from 1861 - 1865.

You state that will be "stuck" if I can't show you an "explicit prohibition against secession in the Constitution." I have produced a statement by the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who stated, as you have, that secession cannot be found in the constitution and that secession is not constitutional.

I'm "stuck" with the Chief Justice. You're "stuck" with no mention of the words "secede" or "secession" within the same document, but infer that somehow, in spite of the lack of mention of them, that the right of secession is in there somewhere, invisible to all who read that document.

I'm going with the Chief Justice.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
You have forgotten that the right of secession was not the question before the Court. That fact reduces the obiter dictum of Chase to worthless rot.
Texas v White is still alive and kicking.
SCOTT KOHLHAAS v. STATE OF ALASKA argued 2010.
In Texas v. White, an opinion issued just after the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court stated:​
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. 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 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.[[22 ]​
This is the law to which we Alaskans bound ourselves at the moment we achieved statehood. We recognized in Kohlhaas I: “When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity.” 23 We concluded that because “Secession is clearly unconstitutional” 24 and “because the initiative [sought] a clearly unconstitutional end, the lieutenant governor correctly declined to certify it.” 25


 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Perception is our apparent problem.

I agree with you and Chief Justice Taney that secession cannot be found in the constitution. You yourself have said over and over the words secession and secede cannot be found anywhere in the constitution, is that not correct?

So in what way, when a form or mode to exercise secession cannot be found anywhere within the constitution, does it's lack or mention give any credence whatsoever that it is a right reserved to states that are no longer sovereign since the adoption of that constitution?

Further, is it was a right reserved to the states, as no attempt made to implement this hidden, unmentioned right, via the Supreme Court or by the constitutional method of amendment? Why was war chosen vice this peaceful means, if secession was so obvious a constitutional option?

Because the Southern states know they didn't have a snowflakes chance in hades to present ANY constitutional justification for unilateral secession.

Hence all that shooting from 1861 - 1865.

You state that will be "stuck" if I can't show you an "explicit prohibition against secession in the Constitution." I have produced a statement by the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who stated, as you have, that secession cannot be found in the constitution and that secession is not constitutional.

I'm "stuck" with the Chief Justice. You're stuck with no mention of the words "secede" or "secession" within the same document, but infer that somehow, in spite of the lack of mention of them, that the right of secession is in there somewhere, invisible to all who read that document.

I'm going with the Chief Justice.
2 Chief Justices. Chase said the same thing. In any case, a nullity does not have to be prohibited because it does not exist.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
Perception is our apparent problem.

I agree with you and Chief Justice Taney that secession cannot be found in the constitution. You yourself have said over and over the words secession and secede cannot be found anywhere in the constitution, is that not correct?

So in what way, when a form or mode to exercise secession cannot be found anywhere within the constitution, does it's lack or mention give any credence whatsoever that it is a right reserved to states that are no longer sovereign since the adoption of that constitution?

Further, is it was a right reserved to the states, as no attempt made to implement this hidden, unmentioned right, via the Supreme Court or by the constitutional method of amendment? Why was war chosen vice this peaceful means, if secession was so obvious a constitutional option?

Because the Southern states knew they didn't have a snowflakes chance in hades to present ANY constitutional justification for unilateral secession.

Hence all that shooting from 1861 - 1865.

You state that will be "stuck" if I can't show you an "explicit prohibition against secession in the Constitution." I have produced a statement by the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who stated, as you have, that secession cannot be found in the constitution and that secession is not constitutional.

I'm "stuck" with the Chief Justice. You're "stuck" with no mention of the words "secede" or "secession" within the same document, but infer that somehow, in spite of the lack of mention of them, that the right of secession is in there somewhere, invisible to all who read that document.

I'm going with the Chief Justice.

insults edited by moderator jerseybart if you can't find an explicit prohibition against secession anywhere in the Constitution, because Chase couldn't do it either. So in Texas, a case that had nothing to do with the constitutionality of secession, he fraudulently presented the language of the AoC as evidence that the Constitution prohibited secession. It was utterly corrupt and fooled no one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
Texas v White is still alive and kicking.
SCOTT KOHLHAAS v. STATE OF ALASKA argued 2010.
In Texas v. White, an opinion issued just after the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court stated:​
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. 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 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.[[22 ]​
This is the law to which we Alaskans bound ourselves at the moment we achieved statehood. We recognized in Kohlhaas I: “When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity.” 23 We concluded that because “Secession is clearly unconstitutional” 24 and “because the initiative [sought] a clearly unconstitutional end, the lieutenant governor correctly declined to certify it.” 25



It's too bad Chase couldn't use any language from the Constitution to support his dishonest and worthless prattle. But in all fairness to Chase, it's only because there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,135
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Edited. if you can't find an explicit prohibition against secession anywhere in the Constitution, because Chase couldn't do it either. So in Texas, a case that had nothing to do with the constitutionality of secession, he fraudulently presented the language of the AoC as evidence that the Constitution prohibited secession. It was utterly corrupt and fooled no one. But please, by all means, go with Chase.
@Paterson ,

Edited.

Likewise, I see that you once again agree with me and Taney that secession can be found nowhere within the constitution. You keep claiming, over and over again, that there is no prohibition against secession but fail to agree that there is no way to implement it via the constitution either. I offer Taney's views as evidence there is no secession authorized by the constitution and ask again, why was no attempt made by the Southern states to get the Supreme Court to permit unilateral secession, if it was not prohibited as you claim? If it was so obvious a constitutional right, why Taney's objection to the South who claimed it was constitutional? Why no favorable ruling from the Supreme Court when secession began? And WHY did the South resort to open warfare if the right of secession was plainly obvious somewhere in the constitution?

Because it wasn't and the South knew it. They decide to forever decide the issue by secession by trial-by-combat.

The verdict was decided at Appomattox, 1865.

As for Chase and Texas v. White, that's you and @jgoodguy's debate, not mine, as I am concentrating on the lack of response from you concerning Taney's statements.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
It's too bad Chase couldn't use any language from the Constitution to support his dishonest and worthless prattle. But in all fairness to Chase, it's only because there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
How do we know that if you will not share your definition of secession?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Don't feel bad or embarrassed if you can't find an explicit prohibition against secession anywhere in the Constitution, because Chase couldn't do it either. So in Texas, a case that had nothing to do with the constitutionality of secession, he fraudulently presented the language of the AoC as evidence that the Constitution prohibited secession. It was utterly corrupt and fooled no one. But please, by all means, go with Chase.
As Host.
If you cannot post without referring to your fellow members' characteristics please do not post.
Thanks.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,653
Location
New Jersey
insults edited by moderator jerseybart if you can't find an explicit prohibition against secession anywhere in the Constitution, because Chase couldn't do it either. So in Texas, a case that had nothing to do with the constitutionality of secession, he fraudulently presented the language of the AoC as evidence that the Constitution prohibited secession. It was utterly corrupt and fooled no one.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
109
@Paterson ,

Edited.

Likewise, I see that you once again agree with me and Taney that secession can be found nowhere within the constitution. You keep claiming, over and over again, that there is no prohibition against secession but fail to agree that there is no way to implement it via the constitution either. I offer Taney's views as evidence there is no secession authorized by the constitution and ask again, why was no attempt made by the Southern states to get the Supreme Court to permit unilateral secession, if it was not prohibited as you claim? If it was so obvious a constitutional right, why Taney's objection to the South who claimed it was constitutional? Why no favorable ruling from the Supreme Court when secession began? And WHY did the South resort to open warfare if the right of secession was plainly obvious somewhere in the constitution?

Because it wasn't and the South knew it. They decide to forever decide the issue by secession by trial-by-combat.

The verdict was decided at Appomattox, 1865.

As for Chase and Texas v. White, that's you and @jgoodguy's debate, not mine, as I am concentrating on the lack of response from you concerning Taney's statements.

Once again, please show me an explicit prohibition against the right of secession in the Constitution. Edited.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,653
Location
New Jersey
Once again, please show me an explicit prohibition against the right of secession in the Constitution. Or if you can't, please be kind enough to say so. But please stop ducking the issue.
Reply to posts not posters. Do not mention personality or characteristics. You are new here. Please review your terms of service rules.
posted as moderator
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top