Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
And by the way, you gave two reasons why two different states may have a legal right secede. You mentioned nothing about Texas. Your attempts to move the debate goalposts are obvious.
The question was "Can Texas secede?" The answer, legally, is "yes" and is the same for all states. Those blogs and articles are about Texas and how it came into the union. Texas wasn't much different than the first thirteen states in that they were independent entities, especially after the Revolutionary war and pre-ratification.
The 10th amendment, while almost universally ignored by those who don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights, makes it clear that rights NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are reserved to the states or people. Secession is not mentioned and therefore is a states' right.
Second, two states qualified their ratification that they had the right to secede, which was not allowed unless it was in agreement with the Constitution as it was written per the rules of ratification.
These are facts, not internet rumor or innuendo. Texas has the right to secede, as does every other state.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
That was the condition upon returning to the union after the civil war. States entering the union had to agree to all the provisions in the Constitution with no caveats.
The south was in total ruin. They had no choice or leverage.
Where does the Constitution not allow secession?
And you are correct, caveats were not allowed thus NY and VA ratifying with the right to secede and having it approved by Congress means the right to secede is there. If not NY and VA are not actually in the union.
Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg
The question was "Can Texas secede?" The answer, legally, is "yes" and is the same for all states. Those blogs and articles are about Texas and how it came into the union. Texas wasn't much different than the first thirteen states in that they were independent entities, especially after the Revolutionary war and pre-ratification.
The 10th amendment, while almost universally ignored by those who don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights, makes it clear that rights NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are reserved to the states or people. Secession is not mentioned and therefore is a states' right.
Second, two states qualified their ratification that they had the right to secede, which was not allowed unless it was in agreement with the Constitution as it was written per the rules of ratification.
These are facts, not internet rumor or innuendo. Texas has the right to secede, as does every other state.
You clearly didn't read the supporting links in the opinion piece nor the full Time article. And you've completely ignored the Supreme Court case that backs it all up.
No state has a legal right to secession. You can draw the inference from the 10th Amendment all you'd like but it's simply not true.
You offer up opinion and woefully inaccurate legal interpretations of the 10th Amendment, I'll keep offering up proper legal interpretations backed by Supreme Court precedent and people who know the law better than either of us. I guess "one nation, indivisible" was just a throw away line, huh?
But why listen to me? Maybe Justice Scalia will provide you some much needed legal knowledge on the issue:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...ing-the-union/
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg
Where does the Constitution not allow secession?
And you are correct, caveats were not allowed thus NY and VA ratifying with the right to secede and having it approved by Congress means the right to secede is there. If not NY and VA are not actually in the union.
The Constitution is also silent on crossing state lines to diddle a 6 year old boy, beating up a federal officer, having sex with a goat on federal land etc.
Go ahead and get caught doing those things and see how far the 10th Amendment argument gets you.
Sorry, edited wrong post, my edit removed.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
The Constitution is also silent on crossing state lines to diddle a 6 year old boy, beating up a federal officer, having sex with a goat on federal land etc.
No it is not. The federal government has authority to prosecute crimes committed crossing state lines, prosecuting for offenses against its agents, or crimes committed on federal lands. This IS in the Constitution.
By the way, none of this address the NY and VA ratification process.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
I disagree with Scalia. There is nothing that prevents it and two states ratified it with the proviso, which means AS ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD AND RATIFIED secession was allowed. Frankly, as it was originally understood and ratified beats any interpretation now, as this was what they believed they were agreeing to, which is what is important.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AirFlacco
It was a far greater racist with far more hatred who killed him.
Thank you for finally admitting Lincoln was a racist. Not really sure how one is better or worse at being a racist, but since it's you I'll take the small concession.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
By today's standards he probably was a racist but not by 1850 standards. Again, you keep taking things out of context as HR keeps saying. You can't compare the times. It's like comparing Unitas to Montana - two great QBs of two different eras.
I recognized them above and said he sent former slaves to Africa where they wanted to go. Actually, England did the same thing after buying land and sending their former slaves there but I also said he wasn't nearly as bad as Lee's and Booth's who actually owned slaves and caused a lot of human suffering. The average age for slaves in the south was something like 30, I think, w/o looking it up.
As I keep saying, most of the country felt that way before the Civil War but Lincoln changed and gave them the right to vote when he didn't have to. That's what got him killed in the end. Only he could have pushed thru the 13th amendment.
You did say Lincoln was different during his presidency than before so that's a small concession I'll accept from you.
I also said above he was no where near the racist that you painted him out to be at the top of this discussion.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg
I disagree with Scalia. There is nothing that prevents it and two states ratified it with the proviso, which means AS ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD AND RATIFIED secession was allowed. Frankly, as it was originally understood and ratified beats any interpretation now, as this was what they believed they were agreeing to, which is what is important.
Except the Civil War actually did happen, thus those statements and agreements back in the colonial times that allowed states to opt out of the new union were rendered null and void.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonRaven
Except the Civil War actually did happen, thus those statements and agreements back in the colonial times that allowed states to opt out of the new union were rendered null and void.
Well then, why take issue when the other parts are rendered null and void? Who gives a crap about the first or second, the tenth is toilet paper so why not use the other parts as well?
The War Between the States should not have happened, the south had the right to secede,
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Even General Sherman said the South had the right to secede. He just doubted the wisdom of it given the numbers and resources of the Union. It was a lost cause.
He was the same guy who said just kill the rest of the indians and be done with them.
Re: Is another US Civil War Possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg
Well then, why take issue when the other parts are rendered null and void? Who gives a crap about the first or second, the tenth is toilet paper so why not use the other parts as well?
The War Between the States should not have happened, the south had the right to secede,
That's nothing but hyperbole based off your inaccurate inference to the 10th Amendments use in the secession argument.
It's a straw man position.