One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
As Stupid Immigrants head to the Polls America Barrels Toward Civil War
Page <<first <prev 14 of 14
Jun 12, 2018 07:12:20   #
PeterS
 
Loki wrote:
The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Every single one of the majority was a Lincoln appointee. As such this decision is questionable at best. A post war court justifying the Union aggression. You are quick enough to take this viewpoint when it comes to the Mexican War, and to our forays into the mideast. What I said was that in 1861 (You CAN say 1861, and you DO realize that comes before 1869, right?) there was no law whatsoever prohibiting secession. Three of the last four states to ratify the Constitution, NY, RI, and VA) did so with a proviso that they reserved the right to secede. They were admitted to the Union nonetheless, ergo; secession was legal. A kangaroo SCOTUS justifying Northern aggression after the fact notwithstanding. SCOTUS decisions are not written in stone; the Court has reversed itself around 130 times.

In 1861, there was no law preventing secession.
The decision you refer to was reached in 1869. Eve... (show quote)

Article 1, Sec. 8 grants congress the right to suppress all i**********ns so while the law not specific it is certainly implied (unless a state can secede without an i**********n) and I'm sorry if the Court doesn't meet your approval; are we to assume that every ruling where the majority share the same ideology the ruling spurious? If so there are a number I would like to see stricken...

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 07:53:21   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
PeterS wrote:
Article 1, Sec. 8 grants congress the right to suppress all i**********ns so while the law not specific it is certainly implied (unless a state can secede without an i**********n) and I'm sorry if the Court doesn't meet your approval; are we to assume that every ruling where the majority share the same ideology the ruling spurious? If so there are a number I would like to see stricken...

Try and keep up. A secession is not necessarily an i**********n. Perhaps it was in the case of South Carolina, but it most certainly was not in the case of Virginia.
Tenth Amendment.
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 know you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but let me try to simplify it for you. (If I use words you don't understand, let me know and I will provide you with a definition in the event you are incapable of procuring one yourself.)
I**********n is rising up against your government, and almost always has connotations of violence
Secession is the act of withdrawing from that government. When one becomes a citizen of another country, one secedes from his or her former country. I**********n is an attempt to o*******w or damage the government., whereas secession is simply a severance of ties with no intention of harming the government you are withdrawing from. It is simply giving up your citizenship on a large scale. It was perfectly legal then and still is now for a person to voluntarily surrender their US citizenship, and doing this on a large scale is called secession.
South Carolina formally seceded from the Union before any violence was perpetrated. Had they attacked Fort Sumter BEFORE their lawful secession, it would have been an i**********n and the Union would have been justified in using force to put it down.
Virginia seceded as an independent state or republic, not as a member of the Confederacy. They did not become a member of the Confederacy until they were invaded by Union troops after their stated desire to remain neutral.
I know that some of these concepts are hard for you to grasp, especially since I did not provide any pictures, diagrams or illustrations, but do try to come in out of the rain occasionally.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 09:06:14   #
Sicilianthing
 
PeterS wrote:
Article 1, Sec. 8 grants congress the right to suppress all i**********ns so while the law not specific it is certainly implied (unless a state can secede without an i**********n) and I'm sorry if the Court doesn't meet your approval; are we to assume that every ruling where the majority share the same ideology the ruling spurious? If so there are a number I would like to see stricken...


>>>>

At the Same Time Mr. Bonehead the Constitution states that that the people have the right to throw off such government with the tools they gave us like the Article V and redress of Grievances... and that when that fails to remove them from offices by any means necessary including the Fraud Scumbag Judges and Courts which no longer serve or protect the People.

Reply
 
 
Jun 12, 2018 11:32:51   #
cold iron Loc: White House
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>

At the Same Time Mr. Bonehead the Constitution states that that the people have the right to throw off such government with the tools they gave us like the Article V and redress of Grievances... and that when that fails to remove them from offices by any means necessary including the Fraud Scumbag Judges and Courts which no longer serve or protect the People.





And if that fails, then the 2nd amendment comes into effect.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 15:13:46   #
Sicilianthing
 
cold iron wrote:

And if that fails, then the 2nd amendment comes into effect.


>>>>

JACKPOT!

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 06:09:51   #
Texas Truth Loc: Behind Enemy Lines
 
Things could be so different. Too many o fecals undermining the Constitution. You can swing a dead cat by the tail and let it fly in the dark and hit one. No aiming required.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 11:23:53   #
Sicilianthing
 
Texas T***h wrote:
Things could be so different. Too many o fecals undermining the Constitution. You can swing a dead cat by the tail and let it fly in the dark and hit one. No aiming required.


>>>>

Bullseye and much of the Fecal matter is infecting some of the Conservatives who think they’re conservative and Republican or independent but they’re really progressives and ph**KING NEoCons !

Reply
 
 
Jun 13, 2018 14:00:18   #
Texas Truth Loc: Behind Enemy Lines
 
That must explain why they have so many bunkers

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 15:36:53   #
Sicilianthing
 
Texas T***h wrote:
That must explain why they have so many bunkers


>>>>

Because they know the I**********n is slowly starting and Trump might be the guy to tip it all over...

Reply
Page <<first <prev 14 of 14
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.