NAACP blasts Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey over Confederate monument ad

Picking a fight for any particular reason?

 

The laws were different in 1861. If a state felt like the federal government was becoming tyrannical, they could definitely secede. What they COULDN'T do is overthrow the government, as that would have made them traitors. Instead they seceded. If you want to be technical, the North came in and overthrew the Confederate government, therefore making the US the traitors.

 

states did not have a right to secede. When they attacked ft sumtner, that was an act of treason.

they weren't able to secede.

there was no confederate government. there was a group of traitorous rebels, who were put back in their place.

 

Prove that States weren't able to secede. Should be easy enough. Something so basic must have been spelled out in the constitution, right?

 

I never said anything about the Ordinance, which was basically procedural, the arguments for and against secession had already taken place. Are you denying the state's said what I quoted them as saying? There's no shortage of documents and speeches attesting to why the southern states left the union. Why do you people continue to disagree with facts and reality?

 

Slavery is legal in every State in America in 2018. The main difference is that individuals can't own slaves like they could before.

 

ok. point out where in the constitution, states have any legal mechanism for secession. Should be easy.

see above. Show me where a state can secede, in the constitution.

 

Oh, boy, that's easy.

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.

No "mechanism" is needed. Clearly, the denial of the right of a State to secede is not granted to the Federal government nor is that right prohibited to the States by the constitution.

Your turn!!

 

yes, a mechanism is needed. But don't take my word for it, here is Scalia telling you the same thing................http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

 

The confederate monuments are pieces of **** with no artistic or historical value. The majority of them were cranked out using cheap materials in the jim crow era for the sole purpose of insulting black people. Melt them down and make drug paraphernalia out of them.

 

Was Scalia alive in 1860 to offer his words of wisdom?

Edit: Note that Lincoln studiously avoided using the "S" word (secession) in his inaugural address. Had there been any legal prohibition on it, surely that was the time to say so. Instead he relied on a convoluted argument of "a more perfect union", which had no legal weight at all.

 

has anything in the constitution changed since 1860 that allows secession? no? then you continue to be wrong. Glad I can help educate you on constitutional law.

 

Yeah, well, as noted in my edit above, the time to point it out was before a war began that claimed upwards of a million lives.

More to the point, the legality of secession wasn't decided until 1869 (Texas v White), which further shows it wasn't a settled issue until 4 years after the war. Had it been, it would have been brought up.

 

so, as I said, there is no right to secession. thank you.

 

Thanks for showing us all that you don't understand that 1869 came after 1860.

 

Thanks for showing us all that you don't understand how constitutional law works. Once something is declared unconstitutional (states seceding) it was always unconstitutional.

Always happy to educate conservatives on basic concepts.

 

So abortion in all 50 States was legal before Roe v Wade?

 

where are you getting lost? Once something is declared unconstitutional, it was ALWAYS unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

This is basic grade school civics.

 

Yet this occurred to none of the learned scholars of the day, not even Abraham Lincoln. My, oh, my. Tsk, tsk.

Do you even know what Texas v White was about? It was about the sale of bonds, not secession. As such, Salmon Chase's opinions about secession were dicta and thus did not establish any legal precedent.

Dicta: Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

 

yep. just like every other law or act that was declared unconstitutional.

yes

lol,

And the actual ruling of the court..............

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Where do you keep getting lost? I can't really dumb this down any further for you.

 

How can I dumb down "dicta" for you any further?

Ownership of bonds was the issue, not secession. Chase's ruling rests on dicta. At best, secession was collateral to the ruling, but the ruling itself was on the ownership of bonds. For secession to be ruled on, it would have had to have been the issue before the court.

Now, had the SCOTUS wanted to rule on secession, it had a perfect opportunity with the charges against Jefferson Davis. Instead, the court opted to issue a writ of nolle prosequi in the Davis case just weeks prior and took up the weighty constitutional issue of ownership of some bonds.

Never mind that Texas was under military rule with an appointed rather than elected governor and was therefore unable to mount a defense. Actually, that is exactly why Chase heard Texas v White rather than US v Davis. As a member of Lincoln's cabinet, he knew what it meant for secession to be tried on its merits. For, as Chase said, "the war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation."

 

Revisionist history has taught you to hate a group for fighting for freedom from tyranny and made you think it was ok to call them traitors when they weren't even close to meeting the requirements of such, and you're not the only one ignorant of that. Shame.

 

I literally just quoted the ruling of the court for you. It Dicta. They specifically ruled secession is unconstitutional.

 

Reality, as usual, is the exact opposite of conservative propoganda. Southern states did not have the authority to leave the union. The Supreme Court ruled they were never a separate country. They were treasonous scum, and were put in their place.

 

You cannot have a ruling on secession without secession being the issue. The only valid ruling in Texas v White was on the ownership of the bonds as that was the only issue before the court. For all the legal weight it carried, Chase may as well have given his mother's recipe for apple pie along with his opinions on a more perfect union.

I literally cannot make it any simpler for you.