The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,932
Location
Central Florida
#81
Vareb---

Vareb,

There is no amendment allowing secession but one can argue there should be one. I do not know if there was ever an amendment ever proposed before or after the Civil war.

Vareb,

Secession is illegal under the White VS Texas ruling after the Civil war but it is a weak ruling, Southern leaders never tried to use the courts to push for secession only to force the Fugitive Slave act upon the Northern peoples.
 

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

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,455
Location
Near Kankakee
#83
There is no amendment allowing secession but one can argue there should be one. I do not know if there was ever an amendment ever proposed before or after the Civil war.
No government, ever, establishes itself with a provision for its dissolution. It is always permanent and forever. (Where is Hanny when we need him?)

ole
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,521
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#84
Y'all good at making mountains out of mole hills.

It seems too simple for y'all!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Vareb,

No, frankly, what you offer is way too simple. Too simple to be believed in the face of all the evidence presented here.

Again, there are Supreme Court cases, arguments of the founding fathers, even Robert E. Lee, claiming that secession was nothing but revolution. Chief Justice Taney even declared there was nothing in the Constitution that implied secession, and he could read the tenth amendment too.

Unilateral secession is a dead letter. It was an unproven theory that got tested with the Civil War and came out the loser. That's history.

Could other types of secession prove workable, legal, and successful? I believe that there are.

But declaring you're up and leaving and that your stealing everything that isn't yours is not legal, not right, and is more than likely fattening.

And the tenth amendment is not a diet plan nor a legal means of leaving the Union, not when you read the ENTIRE Constitution.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,521
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#85
Vareb,

There is no amendment allowing secession but one can argue there should be one. I do not know if there was ever an amendment ever proposed before or after the Civil war.

Vareb,

Secession is illegal under the White VS Texas ruling after the Civil war but it is a weak ruling, Southern leaders never tried to use the courts to push for secession only to force the Fugitive Slave act upon the Northern peoples.
5fish,

No, there was not and where do you get the idea that White v. Texas is a weak ruling?

Since it's ruling, no state has ever challenged it. You would think someone could come up with a good argument to strike it down in over 144 years if it was such a 'weak' ruling.

The reason Southern leaders didn't push for a court case concerning secession is they knew there was no legal standing for the theory so they didn't even try.

If secession was so obvious, so legal, and so workable, why no push for an amendment? Why no push for a case before the Supreme Court in all the years prior to the Civil War?

Because it would have been thrown out or dismissed as either foolish or illegal.

We are not born with an automatic impluse for suicide, not if we are whole and stable. Why do you think a nation would be created with a hidden suicide clause buried somewhere in its birth certificate?

The idea is simply insane and makes no practical argument, then or now.

And the Paris Peace Treaty makes no allowance for secession nor that the idea that the states were separate sovereignties which could withdraw from the Union.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
2,871
#86
Quite cooly and with great deliberation, the south[s leaders chose to validate their their of a state rights to unilateral secession on the field of battle, where God (or luck) defends the right.
The north was right, because it validated its claims against secession, by besting the south on the field of their (the south's) choosing.
 

5fish

Captain
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,932
Location
Central Florida
#87
unionblue---

To Unionblue

[
No, there was not and where do you get the idea that White v. Texas is a weak ruling?
Well, first the ruling was 5-3 so a slit decision, the ruling was base on the wording of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation so it is open to interpretation by future courts and lawmakers.

Since it's ruling, no state has ever challenged it. You would think someone could come up with a good argument to strike it down in over 144 years if it was such a 'weak' ruling.
Political suicide for now, it will take a loony person but wait one day.


The reason Southern leaders didn't push for a court case concerning secession is they knew there was no legal standing for the theory so they didn't even try.

If secession was so obvious, so legal, and so workable, why no push for an amendment? Why no push for a case before the Supreme Court in all the years prior to the Civil War?

Because it would have been thrown out or dismissed as either foolish or illegal.
I do not know the full answer behind why the courts were not use to push the secession fight but secession was part of the political debate for decades...


We are not born with an automatic impluse for suicide, not if we are whole and stable. Why do you think a nation would be created with a hidden suicide clause buried somewhere in its birth certificate?

The idea is simply insane and makes no practical argument, then or now.

And the Paris Peace Treaty makes no allowance for secession nor that the idea that the states were separate sovereignties which could withdraw from the Union.
Does a member of a rock band leave always bring the death of the rock band, NO. If one or more states left our union, we would still be the United states. Secession is not suicide only relief for the few or abused by the few. Our civil war falls into the latter group.
 
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,602
Location
St. Louis, Mo
#88
Does a member of a rock band leave always bring the death of the rock band, NO. If one or more states left our union, we would still be the United states. Secession is not suicide only relief for the few or abused by the few. Our civil war falls into the latter group.
The U.S. v the Grateful Dead. What a comparison.

Once again, should any person or persons feel abused in the U.S. they have every right to pack up and move themselves to more agreeable climes. They have no right, however, to try and take the real estate with them when they go.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,211
#90
Y'all good at making mountains out of mole hills.

It seems too simple for y'all!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I asked this earlier. You didn't answer. If it is all so "simple", it should be very easy for you to answer: What powers are those?

Tim
 
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,602
Location
St. Louis, Mo
#92
It seems too simple for y'all!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Simple indeed.

"It [the 10th Amendment] added nothing to the instrument [the Constitution] as originally ratified..."

U.S. v Sprague
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,521
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#96
If you don't know why should I help you? Ask away. Sometimes I answer and sometimes I don't.
Vareb,

Here is where your tenth amendment theory goes to the wayside.

Even you can't explain it.

"Sometimes I answer and sometimes I don't" = "sometimes I can and sometimes I can't."

If it is so simple, why is it so hard to explain? In your own words?

Maybe because even the men who advocated unilateral secession in 1860 could not use the US Constitution to substansiate their claim, so they didn't even bother.

This is what is great about unilateral secession. You don't have to explain anything, you just up and leave, taking everything that the nation as a whole paid for.

Too simple is right.

Unionblue
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,562
Location
Shenandoah Valle
#97
Vareb,

Here is where your tenth amendment theory goes to the wayside.

Even you can't explain it.

"Sometimes I answer and sometimes I don't" = "sometimes I can and sometimes I can't."

If it is so simple, why is it so hard to explain? In your own words?

Maybe because even the men who advocated unilateral secession in 1860 could not use the US Constitution to substansiate their claim, so they didn't even bother.

This is what is great about unilateral secession. You don't have to explain anything, you just up and leave, taking everything that the nation as a whole paid for.

Too simple is right.

Unionblue
The 10th amendment don't need no long winded explaining. It is simply self explanatory.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So simple! Go ahead and talk it to death. That is about all y'all can do with it.

AMI. They calling me names!! :laugh1:
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA
#98
The 10th amendment don't need no long winded explaining. It is simply self explanatory.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So simple! Go ahead and talk it to death. That is about all y'all can do with it.

AMI. They calling me names!! :laugh1:
Can you show any Constitutional scholar who agrees with your interpretation of theTenth Amendmend?
 
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,837
Location
California
#99
We don't need no stinkin' scholars. Don't you know? All academics are anti-Southern American hating liberals.

All we need is good old-fashioned conviction! Nevermind the facts, we've got our opinion and we're sticking to it come H--- or high water!


Vareb, I don't know if you intend to make us think that's how you think, but that's definately the impression you're creating.
 



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