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.
lets look at what the founding fathers had to say about it:
Thomas Jefferson, first inauguration address - "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."
Fifteen years later, Jefferson said - "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
So, Jefferson believed the states had a right to secede.
During Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
So the Virginian delegates believed it.
In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
So James Madison believed it.
And a final thought, the Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.
Ammendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ammendment 10 (just as a refresher) - 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.
Since secession was not specifically denied by the Constitution to the states, the states, and the people, retained that right.
which makes the rest of your long arguments irrelevant.
We can sit here and cherry pick quotes all day...
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." ~George Washington, Farewell Address
"That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly." ~George Washington, Circular Letter to the States
"A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection." ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9
"What the fate of the Constitution of the United States would be if a small proportion of States could expunge parts of it particularly valued by a large majority, can have but one answer." ~ James Madison, Letter to Edward Everett
"The Constitution is a compact; that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part." ~ James Madison, Letter to Edward Everett
"Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility." ~ Daniel Webster, The Constitution and the Union
"The Decleration of Independence is the fundamental act of union between these states." ~ Jefferson and Madison, University of Virginia Resolution
“The express authority of the people alone could give validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.” ~ James Madison, Federalist #43
“It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.” ~ George Washington, Letter to Congress
"Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government; can a majority of them do it? No; because they are connected with other men, or, in other words, consolidated with other states. When the people of Virginia, at a future day, shall wish to alter their government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a minority at the extremity of the United States. The founders of your Constitution made your government changeable: but the power of changing it is gone from you. Whither is it gone? It is placed in the same hands that hold the rights of twelve other states; and those who hold those rights have right and power to keep them. It is not the particular government of Virginia: one of the leading features of that government is that a majority can alter it, when necessary for the public good. This government is not a Virginian, but an American government. Is it not, therefore, a consolidated government?" ~ Patrick Henry, Speech in Virgina Statehouse...railing AGAINST adoption of the Constitutution as it would surrender Virginia's sovereignty.
“The design of this plan, it is obvious, was to render the states nothing more than the provinces of a great government, to rear upon the ruins of the old confederacy a consolidated government, one and indivisible.” ~ John Tyler, Speech on Floor of Senate...railing against "Madison's Creation".
“It crushes ‘nullification’ and must hasten an abandonment of secession.” ~ James Madison, Letter to Daniel Webster, Madison was declaring Webster the winner in his debate with Hayne over nullification.
****
So, there are some of my quotes...architect of the constitution, father of the country, leading federalist, leading constitutional scholar of the antebellum period, a staunch anti-federalist and the only man who was both President of the US and a member of the government of the CSA. All seemed to agree that "union" embodied a national character, from the beginning with the signing of the DOI that continues forward to this day and that unilateral secession is simply not possible.
According to Madison and Jefferson the Declaration of Independence was the "fundamental act of union" and the states have been united in the creation of a national character and identity ever since; through the Articles, through the Constitution. Madison would go on to explain that the United States is both FEDERAL and NATIONAL, hence the "unique creation" the Founders were so proud of. One cannot forsake the NATIONAL because it no longer suits their limited interest.
One of the largest debates over the Constitution was the use of "We the People" instead of "We the States". The anti-federalists were adamently opposed to it not being "We the States", they lost.
You are also twisting what Jefferson intended when he spoke of leaving the political body. Jefferson and the other Founders all recognized a peoples right to revolution. They also spoke about the necessity of such a "natural right" being a "last resort". Secession, for them, was analogous with revolution. At no time did they express some legal or constitutional right to secession, merely a natural right for people to revolt against oppression when they have no other redress for their grievances. All of the Founders, including Jefferson, had a much greater preference for "ballots instead of bullets".
We can sit here all day and spam quotes back and forth at each other. However, this will ultimately prove neither side of the debate as that has been in fact settled by the Civil War itself. While there was an existing debate between allegiance and "compact vs. nation" in the antebellum period, that question has been resolved.
The Supreme Court in Texas vs. White decided that secession was not legally possible unless it was agreed upon by the entire body. The 14th Amendment, Section 1...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is widely interpreted as the amendment that settled the debate over the legality of secession. It established that ones allegiance is to the United States first and to their State only as a matter of being a component jurisdiction of the United States. No state may deny, overrule or take away the status of a person as a citizen of the United States. We are Americans first and the national identity is supreme.
Where there may have been a debate in the antebellum period, it is now a settled matter.
one more time and if the cry baby that has me on his ignore list wants to weigh in go ahead, I won't ignore you.
Abe Lincoln was not an abolitionist and the USA did not go to war to end slavery, nor did the CSA states secede to preserve the "Perculiar Institution".
The right to own Slaves was protected by the US Constitution (Article I, sections 2 and 9, Article IV, section 2, Amendments IV, V, IX and X). Abolition could come only by state law or Constitutional Amendment. Lincoln knew that and said as much throughout the 1860 campaign. As he repeated in his First Inaugural Address, he had neither the desire nor the authority to abolish slavery where it existed. He may have ignored that basic fact when he promulgated the illegal and unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation, but as a elementary principle of constitutional law, neither the Chief Executive not the Congress could legally abolish slavery or emancipate slaves.
No abolition amendment was ever introduced before 1864 for a very simple reason. The was insufficient support in the north for ratification. The south would not even have had to vote to defeat it. In 1864, with the CSA states absent, Congress considered an abolition amendment for the very first time. It was defeated. Had it been passed in Congress, it would never have been ratified at the polls or in convention. In March, 1861, the Republican dominated northern majority in Congress passed the Corwin Amendment. If ratified, Corwin would have become Amendment XIII. By its terms, Corwin would have prohibited any future attempt to propose an abolition amendment. Rather than to stick around to ratify Corwin, the CSA states seceded. Why would they have seceded to protect a right that was guaranteed, especially when Lincoln and the northern states wanted to extend that guarantee into perpetuity? It is axiomatic that the CSA states did not secede over the slavery issue.
Consider the problems if some four million people, angry, homeless, uneducated, unwanted, penniless, with no means of support and no marketable job skills were unloosed on society. Who would care for them? Who would foot the bill? Who would put down the hordes of rampaging freed slaves set on revenge or marauding, rioting and looting just to obtain the means to survive? How were the owners to be compensated for the wrongful governmental taking of their property. Given the total absence of a labor force in the south, the plantation owners needed the slaves to run the farms and the lion's share of southern fortunes were tied up in the human chattel and in the land that would lie fallow without the slaves to work it. The north relied on those slaves at least as much, if not more, than did the south. Abolitionists were always a minority faction, albeit a vocal one, and they had very few viable solutions for the chaos they were trying to create.
Preserve the Union? Not so. When Great Britain granted independence to the colonies by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, thirteen new nations were created. Those nations joined together into an alliance, a confederation of nations, under the Articles of Confederation. When the Articles proved to be an abysmal failure, the compact was scrapped and a new one was drafted at the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention in 1787. The member nations who allied with the new confederation, the USA, did not surrender their independence, sovereignty and autonomy and opt to become subservient political subdivisions of a single nation. They created a FEDERAL, not a NATIONAL, government and the delegated only limited powers to that government over only expressly delineated and enumerated areas of common interest. They, and each of them, otherwise retained full independence, sovereignty and autonomy. The right to secede from the confederation was an implicit, if not express, given.
The right to secede for a government that fails to serve, defend and protect the rights and interests of the governed is the very core principle of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison understood there was a right of secession when they authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798. The New England states knew it when the threatened to secede in 1803 and again in 1812 and yet again in 1814 and still yet again in 1815. States on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line understood they had the right when they threatened to secede in 1820/21 over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises. They also knew it when, especially in New England, they threatened secession of the Taney Court decision in the Dred Scott case. South Carolina understood it in 1837 when she threatened secession during the Tariff Act/ Nullification Acts crisis. Abe Lincoln understood the right when he argued in support of it on the floor of Congress on January 12, 1848.
The south had been totally disenfranchised and had no voice in the federal government, as the 1860 election so painfully proved. Lincoln was elected without carrying a single southern state and without having even appeared on the ballot in several. The House, with representation being based on population, had long since been a northern club. Representation in the Senate was ostensibly equal, with 2 senators per state. The north held an overwhelming majority there, especially when slave states like Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky voted, as they often did, with the northern block. Although 75% of federal revenues were raised in the south, 75% of federal spending occurred in the north. Northern tariffs were making it all but impossible for southern planters to trade on the international market, then northern money and industrial interests were setting bargain basement prices on southern goods. Those same interests were making it impossible for the south to industrialize or expand its economic base. The southern crops, especially cotton, rice and tobacco, and the taxes they produced, were necessary to fuel the northern money machines. In addition, northern states refused to give full faith and credit to southern laws, and some went so far as to render it criminally punishable to do so or to obey the strictures of the US Constitution.
Having had enough, the democratically elected representatives of the people of the southern states passed the Ordinances of Secession. The people, in full accordance and compliance with constitution strictures and due process of law, ratified the Ordinances at the polls or in convention. Taking the words and principles of the Declaration of Independence to heart, and remembering history and the words of the Founders and Framers, they simply reclaimed the independence, sovereignty and autonomy the had never surrendered. The remaining nations in the USA confederation responded by launching an invasion, a war of aggression, with the goal being the conquest and annexation of the CSA nations. It was NOT a civil war. The democratically elected, free and independent governments of the people, by the people, for the people of the CSA perished from the earth.
Why did the USA want the CSA back in the fold? There were many reasons. The southern cash cow was necessary. The USA did not want competition for the theft of Native American lands in the west. The USA did not want a potential enemy nation or confederation of nations on its southern or western border, especially if that (those) nations allied with the likes of The United Kingdom, France, Prussia or Spain. If the CSA states were allowed to secede, the floodgates might open elsewhere, especially given the number of times the New England states had threatened to do it, but folks in some of the western states weren't terribly happy with some of the policies coming out of Washington. There was good reason to worry that the map of North America would come to resemble the ever changing map of Europe, complete with the constant petty wars that were the tradition there. Industrialization had made it desirable that the USA be a single nation with subservient political subdivisions called states, rather than a federation of states (think "nation-state", as did the Founders and Framers).
The Constitution was set aside. The basic precepts of the Declaration of Independence were forgotten. The oaths of office of every government official and military officers (to defend, protect and serve the constitution) were cast aside. It was not about slavery. It was about money and power.
So why pass Amendment XIII after the war? That was not a human rights decision. Ratification of the Amendment was coerced for the same reason Lincoln issued the EP (and why congress had done the same then months earlier, equally illegally and unconstitutionally, with the Confiscation Acts). Emancipation, and later, abolition, were tools of war. They were intended to destroy the southern economy, the southern financial base, southern society and the southern way of life. During the war, they were intended as weapons. After the war, the goals were the same to insure that the south would not soon rise again.
There is a lot more. You won't find it in your text. Remember, "history" is written by the victors. That does not mean that the myths and legends comport with the "truth" or the "facts". The bottom line is, the war was not about slavery. The war did not, and could not, abolish slavery. When the war ended, the constitution was unchanged - until ratification of Amendment XIII was coerced. The war did bring to and end the government the Founders and Framers had tried to establish, and the all powerful central NATIONAL government they had tried to avoid and prevent came into being, the independence of the member nations was lost for all time, and the Declaration of Independence became just so many empty words. So it goes.
Are you Oscar Himpflewitz? If not, you just plagiarized his answer on Yahoo from four years ago...
See, this is the problem with you. You don't actually debate anything with your own thoughts and ideas, you just copy and paste things from the internet and claim them as your own. You are a fraud.
My response to Oscar Himpflewitz...
The war was not about the abolition of slavery, but it was certainly about the preservation of political power for the slave states. There was not a SINGLE thing that happened, besides the election of Abraham Lincoln that would have given the South cause for secession. No new laws, no oppression, the South had full representation in the government, etc. The South saw their political power waning away and instead of living up to the ideals of the Constitution and the Founders, they chose to quit when they were no longer able to bend the will of the majority for their own purposes. The South was nothing more than a sullen child who had been told that the rules of the game did in fact matter, so they took the ball and went home. The Founders, had they been alive would have seen no cause for the Southern states to engage in a revolution, they had no legitimacy for their action.
Wait, what about tariffs you say...TARIFFS, TARIFFS...the South was being taxed to death. Well, the southern states had full representation in the government when these tariffs were put in place. At the time of secession, the tariffs were LOWER than they had been at any previous point. The existing tariffs were established by the Tariff Act of 1857 which was drafted and passed by the southern states themselves. The "Lincoln tariff" mentioned by Mt. Himpflewitz is known as the Morrill Tariff. It was drafted and proposed in order to reverse the Tariff Act of 1857. It was proposed before Lincoln ever took office and only passed because the southern states that would have opposed had ALREADY SECEDED AND LEFT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yes, that's right, the tariff the neo-Confederates claim forced the South into secession wasn't passed until the south had seceded and stood little chance of passing had the southern block remained in the government and was signed by Buchanan, not Lincoln.
My previous post detailed the real reasons for secession...waning political power for the slave states whose only interest was the preservation of slavery.
Feel free to respond when you can form your own arguments.
Texas vs. White happened in 1869 after the war. Federalism won the war so does it surprises what a majority of judges appointed from the north think? LOL
What of Ammendment 10 - 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 you don't understand?
If secession was a right to enforce and decide by the federal government, don't you think the founding fathers would have put it explicitly in the constitution just like the right to bear arms and the right to own slaves?
Secession was never prohibited to the states in the constitution because the federal government had no power over that.
who's cherry picking now?
Of course everything change after the war and now basically the federal government can just do about anything from starting wars without congress declaring it and listening to our phone calls an emails at will, I.R.S. unlimited powers of taking property and putting citizens in prison, the war on drugs......the list is long.
See, this is the problem with you. You don't actually debate anything with your own thoughts and ideas, you just copy and paste things from the internet and claim them as your own. You are a fraud.
My response to Oscar Himpflewitz...
The war was not about the abolition of slavery, but it was certainly about the preservation of political power for the slave states. There was not a SINGLE thing that happened, besides the election of Abraham Lincoln that would have given the South cause for secession. No new laws, no oppression, the South had full representation in the government, etc. The South saw their political power waning away and instead of living up to the ideals of the Constitution and the Founders, they chose to quit when they were no longer able to bend the will of the majority for their own purposes. The South was nothing more than a sullen child who had been told that the rules of the game did in fact matter, so they took the ball and went home. The Founders, had they been alive would have seen no cause for the Southern states to engage in a revolution, they had no legitimacy for their action.
Wait, what about tariffs you say...TARIFFS, TARIFFS...the South was being taxed to death. Well, the southern states had full representation in the government when these tariffs were put in place. At the time of secession, the tariffs were LOWER than they had been at any previous point. The existing tariffs were established by the Tariff Act of 1857 which was drafted and passed by the southern states themselves. The "Lincoln tariff" mentioned by Mt. Himpflewitz is known as the Morrill Tariff. It was drafted and proposed in order to reverse the Tariff Act of 1857. It was proposed before Lincoln ever took office and only passed because the southern states that would have opposed had ALREADY SECEDED AND LEFT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yes, that's right, the tariff the neo-Confederates claim forced the South into secession wasn't passed until the south had seceded and stood little chance of passing had the southern block remained in the government and was signed by Buchanan, not Lincoln.
My previous post detailed the real reasons for secession...waning political power for the slave states whose only interest was the preservation of slavery.
Feel free to respond when you can form your own arguments.
that's me.....and Im glad you are searching me online. I got your attention.......a fraud? prove it. I participate in many forums on the web dont be such a cry baby and stick to the topic.....LMAO!
Texas vs. White happened in 1869 after the war. Federalism won the war so does it surprises what a majority of judges appointed from the north think? LOL
No, it doesn't surprise me, I was just pointing out that whatever possible debate existed in 1860 was settled by 1865 and is now the accepted standard. There is no right of secession. You can argue that some people interpreted it to exist in 1860 and others didn't. 600,000 bodies later the ones who said it isn't possible won. You were arguing as if such a right was inherent in the Constitution and exists today, it does not. All of the ambiguity was washed away in a sea of blood. Going back and quoting the Founders endlessly provides no basis because you can cherry pick just about any stance you'd want. Why don't we ask Alexander Hamilton what his stance was? Do you think he supported a right of secession. You can claim that some believed it to exist, but you cannot pretend that it has an express legal basis.
Quote:
What of Ammendment 10 - 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 you don't understand?
If secession was a right to enforce and decide by the federal government, don't you think the founding fathers would have put it explicitly in the constitution just like the right to bear arms and the right to own slaves?
Secession was never prohibited to the states in the constitution because the federal government had no power over that.
who's cherry picking now?
Of course everything change after the war and now basically the federal government can do about just anything from starting war without congress declaring war and listening to our phone calls an emails at will......the list is long.
Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it......It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.
~ James Madison
If you want the constitutional retort than it would be...
Article I, Section 10, Clause I:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
Article VI, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause):
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The 10th Amendment reiterates that the laws of the United States come before the laws of any state. States are clearly barred from entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation. The laws of the United States are supreme and the States must submit. Such is the will of the People.
Here's a fun question...
Can a state be forced out of the union, say by a vote of the other states? Answer that and you will have your answer regarding the legality of secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush71
that's me.....and Im glad you are searching me online. I got your attention.......a fraud? prove it. I participate in many forums on the web dont be such a cry baby and stick to the topic.....LMAO!
I've read several posts on several forums by Oscar Himpflewitz (who goes by "Oscar Himpflewitz")...you're not Oscar Himpflewitz. You are far less articulate and your writing styles are appreciably different. You are simply cutting and pasting things you find online that seem to support your argument.
Are you also xyzzy from Yahoo? One of your first posts in the the thread was very similar to their post on Yahoo...
Your other lengthy post was also copied from Oscar Himpflewitz verbatim, including the spelling and grammar errors. Every other post you make, save the long ones you've copied from the internet are reminscent of someone who is not "smarter than a 5th grader".
again, if you feel obsessed about searching me online and getting personal they have therapy and pills for that. You are a borderline stalker.
stick to the topic, what part of the Ammendment 10 - 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 you don't understand?
before 1865, was secession prohibited to the states in the constitution?.......was it a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution?
the answer is NO on both so the rest of your opinions are just that, opinions.
again, if you feel obsessed about searching me online and getting personal they have therapy and pills for that. You are a borderline stalker.
It took all of two seconds to google a paragraph from the post you made to find out that you copied it from somewhere else. The fact that you can't even support the arguments that you claim you made yourself is further proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. You just want to continue to engage in reductionist arguments and not address the substance and nuance because you have no idea what the substance and nuance are. I eviscerated that post you stole and your only response is "10th AMDENMENT"...EMOTICON...ROFLMAO???
Quote:
stick to the topic, what part of the Ammendment 10 - 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 you don't understand?
before 1865, was secession prohibited to the states in the constitution?.......was it a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution?
the answer is NO on both so the rest of your opinions are just that, opinions.
Article I, Section 10, Clause I:
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
Article VI, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause):
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
LMAO! If the Nations are no longer in the Union because the constitution doesn't prohibit states from seceding and doesn't give power to the feds to prohibit then Article I, Section 10, Clause I and Article VI, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) doesn't apply.
If I leave a Union, I no longer have to follow the Union rules.
is that all you got? you want to search my Facebook account too?......LMAO!
It took all of two seconds to google a paragraph from the post you made to find out that you copied it from somewhere else. The fact that you can't even support the arguments that you claim you made yourself is further proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. You just want to continue to engage in reductionist arguments and not address the substance and nuance because you have no idea what the substance and nuance are. I eviscerated that post you stole and your only response is "10th AMDENMENT"...EMOTICON...ROFLMAO???
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.
that has me on his ignore list wants to weigh in go ahead, I won't ignore you. 
