Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was a rant not a post and it was garbage. I read the decision.
Nope, actually, unlike your posts calling for mass murder and other war crimes, it was a well reasoned post destroying Chase's arguments against secession that pointed out the fact TX v White didn't settle anything nor is it even binding (dicta). Here I'll post it again:
TX v White, huh? Written by the most radical anti-secessionist Republican, Salmon Chase, and the commentary on secession is non-binding dicta. Easily torn to pieces in less than two typed pages of analysis, because his commentary was based entirely on his own views of American history and not on the Constitution or even an accurate view of American history. The Constitution does not prohibit secession therefore it's a power reserved by the states or the people, under the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, Chase's reference to the Articles of COnfederation saying "the Union shall be perpetual" is incorrect because Article II says the following: "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."
Furthermore, the Constitution only applied(s) to those states that consent to it. Article 7 of the Constitution:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
The supposed "perpetual union" statement in the Articles of COnfederation that Chase's entire argument relies on was dissolved at the constitutional convention in the 1780's and a new union created, that only applied to those states consenting to the new union. And of course, the 10th Amendment says:
"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."
Secession is not prohibited, therefore, the states and people have a right to secede.
Our founding fathers believed in popular sovereignty, not eternal governments without consent by the governed. From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Chase's argument fails miserably. Of course it was not based on either an accurate reading of American history nor on the Constitution so that is no surprise. And it should be noted that Chase himself was partly responsible for no Confederate being charged with treason. He stated the following on that subject:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. We cannot convict him of treason."
Texas v. White, though was a safe case for him to rant in non-binding dicta against secession since it merely involved some bonds. He did not want to risk a trial where the feds would lose, as it would have entirely discredited the government and its mass murder (a.k.a., civil war, in which over 600,000 people died) and would have lead to the Southern states re-asserting their independence. But in TX v White it was simply bonds, no big treason trial to worry about losing.
Who cares? The government hasn't abided by it for years and we're supposed to worry about that part now?
Has anyone else noticed the rise of "attack libs" on the forum? You know the "my mind's made up don't confuse me with the facts" type? If you're conservative, right of center, center, independent or anything but screaming left Hugo Chavez minded it results in attacks and smears and god forbid (oops, seperation of church and life violation I said the "G" word) you have anything negative to say about the current administration!
I fully support the tea parties! This administration is insane in the way it's spending our money that our grandkids will be paying off. Bush was way overboard but this is opening the spigot to full blast and it's going to drown us.
The good part about insurgents is they're entirely adaptable and learn from their mistakes.
The bad part about occupying military forces is they have a 100% failure rate.
BTW, that cult lacked the sheer firepower many others in this country have. Additionally, the government wasn't broke at that time and defection was not an issue.
Oh, for heaven's sake, could these states stop the useless chatter and secede already? There isn't a single one of them that would survive as a sovereign nation anyway. And even that assumes that their secession would take place peacefully. You want out? OK--don't let the door hit you from behind. But don't whine about any consequences of your actions.
actually no a state does not. the question of whether a state can secede or not was never answered by the SCOTUS after the last civil war.
a violation of a compact by one party makes the compact null and void to all parties.
No it doesn't. It's a contract that is binding on both parties and modification requires both parties consent. If you agree to sell your house, you can't unilaterally back out of the deal. You have to get the consent of the other party.
And secession was settle by the Court in Texas v White, as previously mention.
Nope, actually, unlike your posts calling for mass murder and other war crimes, it was a well reasoned {} post destroying Chase's arguments against secession that pointed out the fact TX v White didn't settle anything nor is it even binding (dicta). Here I'll post it again:
Your opinion vs the opinion of the Supreme Court {hmmmm which to accept?} Oh I'll accept the Supreme Court of the United States, since your opinion isn't worth spit.
No it doesn't. It's a contract that is binding on both parties and modification requires both parties consent. If you agree to sell your house, you can't unilaterally back out of the deal. You have to get the consent of the other party.
And secession was settle by the Court in Texas v White, as previously mention.
When one side breaks the contract the other is free to leave. The feds have broken the contract multiple times.
No secession wasn't settled at all. Firstly, the case was about bonds not secession. Secondly, the rant against secession in it was just that, Chase's personal rant and entirely non-binding dicta (you do know what dicta is, right?). Thirdly, Chase based his entire argument off his own personal opinion of American history and not on the Constitution, and that opinion was very flawed as I pointed out in my post. There's simply no getting around Amendment 10 and the fact that secession is not prohibited.
Your opinion vs the opinion of the Supreme Court {hmmmm which to accept?} Oh I'll accept the Supreme Court of the United States, since your opinion isn't worth spit.
Actually it's Chase's personal opinion versus the facts. Can you refute any of the following:
Furthermore, Chase's reference to the Articles of COnfederation saying "the Union shall be perpetual" is incorrect because Article II says the following: "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."
Furthermore, the Constitution only applied(s) to those states that consent to it. Article 7 of the Constitution:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
The supposed "perpetual union" statement in the Articles of COnfederation that Chase's entire argument relies on was dissolved at the constitutional convention in the 1780's and a new union created, that only applied to those states consenting to the new union. And of course, the 10th Amendment says:
"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."
Secession is not prohibited, therefore, the states and people have a right to secede.
Our founding fathers believed in popular sovereignty, not eternal governments without consent by the governed. From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Chase's argument fails miserably. Of course it was not based on either an accurate reading of American history nor on the Constitution so that is no surprise. And it should be noted that Chase himself was partly responsible for no Confederate being charged with treason. He stated the following on that subject:
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. We cannot convict him of treason."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
