Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

I fully support the right of self determination. No question about that. Sorry if I misunderstood your point, but yes, if those counties decide to leave Texas, fine. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, that was a straight answer. Yours was the first. Thank you.

Now, if only AustinEscorts would realize that he lives in a region that is NOT going to be leaving the Union.

Can't wait until he is forced to move and change his name to WacoEscorts.

Pull your head out of your ass are read what i wrote first.

I said above that once Virginia (and the rest) pulled out the Union, they were no longer "states". According to Lincoln, the Southern states were never a separate nation and remained a part of the United States in rebellion. They were part of another country - by their own declaration. They never constituted a separate nation per Lincoln's mandates. Therefore, what prevented West Virginia from pulling out of Virginia? Virginia cannot rely on Article 4, Section 3, it was no longer a state. According to Lincoln, the Southern states never constituted a separate nation. Confederates cannot have it both ways. Lincoln can't have it both ways.

If Virginia is part of another country and West Virginia pulls out to join the union, how is that any different from Texas pulling out of Mexico and joining the union? Or do you think Mexico could have sued under Article IV, Section 3? mexico declared war on the U.S. The issue was resolved on the battlefield, moron.

The Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia's favor. How does that prove me wrong on anything written above. Per Wikipedia, the actual holding was:

Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that where a governor has discretion in the conduct of the election, the legislature is bound by his action and cannot undo the results based on fraud. The case implicitly ratified the secession of the state of West Virginia from the state of Virginia, and explicitly ratified that the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson were part of West Virginia.

So, apparently, there was nothing to stop West Virginia from seceeding from VA and rejoining the Union.

Which brings me back to my original question about regions of Texas pulling out of Texas. And this includes YOU, in particular, since you so lovingly approved of the secession BS in Texas and Louisiana.

Are you OK with the breakup of Texas when (NOT "if", but "when") the wealthy, educated, regions of Texas (i.e., the big cities) thumb their noses at the new "Republic of Texas" and leave the trailer park clowns who support it to wallow in their ignorance. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Operative word is "fraud".

Operative word is "fraud". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are not good at this. Please stop.

Once again, the thoughts of Abraham Lincoln regarding what was or was not a state are NOT controlling. The Constitution is controlling and how it is construed by the Supreme Court.

The operative word is not fraud. That was an allegation made by the Legislature, NOT a holding by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said that if the governor of the state had discretion in the conduct of the election (and he did), then legislature was bound by the governors actions even if there was fraud. In other words, the legislature did not have the power to challenge the governors action, whether or not there was fraud.

That is not the same as the Supreme Court holding that there was fraud.

They said it simply didn't matter.

Uh, Dude. Next time please refer to the actual Constitution, not the Confederate apologist rumor mill.

First, the Senate does not pass statues, BOTH houses do.

In fact, there was nothing in the Constitution that said that slavery must remain legal.

The South had to secede to save slavery.

Can you please point to where that definition of insurrection comes from? Because nothing in Article II, Section 8 says it has to be an Insurrection against a state, as opposed to the federal government.

In fact, the language says Congress had the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invaders."

The "Militias" are the state militias. The "Laws of the Union" are federal laws, NOT state laws. "Invaders" are foreign countries. "Insurrection" includes insurrection against the United States. Nothing limits it to states.

Just in case there was any doubt in anyone's mind, this clause gave Congress the power to call up state militias to do the bidding of Congress when needed. So, if Congress called up the Militia for any reason, the governor of South Carolina could NOT say "no".

See what I wrote above. It is NOT illegal for Congress to call up the Militias to suppress Insurrection. Even if bad man Lincoln supports it. Sorry. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Please don't create straw men here.

Of course it would require both the House and the Senate to pass a statute ending slavery in all states. But the issue wasn't on how expansion into new territories would affect the House because most of the population and representation was there already against the south.

The Senate therefore was the bulwark the south needed in the future to block any statutes outlawying slavery everywhere, and the election of Lincoln, with only 38%of the vote I might add, was feared to have pressaged that.

As for the legality of Lincoln's orders to raise militias in Virginia, etc. to invade the Carolinas, Texas, etc.....

I think Lincoln made those orders as "Commander and Chief." But regardless, the issue was the moral grounds, not the legality, and that's why Virginia and the second tier of states declared independence. It was only the fist tier of most southern states that declared independence because Lincoln was elected and therefore threatened to end their needed institution of slavery [which personally I have no problem with under the circumstances].

There were reasons why Madison, Washington, and Jefferson, not to mention Jackson, all wrote and said that freed slaves should never be made citizens. And I think those reasons were shared not only in the south, but in the north as well. Lincoln himself believed that making freed male slaves was a terrible idea until the very end of the war when he needed their votes for reconstruction.

And if you had lived in those times you would have agreed as well.

Afterall, remember that making freed male slaves citizens with voting rights meant that they could do somthing even white women couldn't do !!

The fact that you cannot see that, and that you impose your 21st century ideas on this issue just explains how bankrupt your parochial, politically-correct views on history really are.

Now about "insurrection."

What other definition could there possiblly be? LOL

Do you really believe that if a state legislature and Governor vote to secceed that such would be "an insurrection?"

How could somthing with the absolute force of law by all the appropriate authorities be
"an insurrection?"

Dude an insurrection is when a bunch of people get together somewhere outside of government and delare they're opposed to it and take up arms.

That's the definition of "an insurrection."

Well, that was a straight answer. Yours was the first. Thank you.

Now, if only AustinEscorts would realize that he lives in a region that is NOT going to be leaving the Union.

Can't wait until he is forced to move and change his name to WacoEscorts. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yeah. Sorry for my original tone. I'm just not used to Assup and some others here having me on ignore. It's really quite pleasant.

The U.S. is not perfect, but Texas alone without all the investment from the Federal Government will become another Mexico. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Hey, hey, hey, watch what u say about Mexico ICP. the main reason Mexico is so fucked up now is the U.S. conspired with Columbia to move the Cartels north. They are mostly wonderful hrdworking folks that have a saner and more democratic democracy than we do.

Serious question, austx. Are you referring to Mexico or Columbia having a saner system than ours, and what about it makes it better? Not flaming, I seriously want to know.

You are not good at this. Please stop.

Once again, the thoughts of Abraham Lincoln regarding what was or was not a state are NOT controlling. The Constitution is controlling and how it is construed by the Supreme Court.

The operative word is not fraud. That was an allegation made by the Legislature, NOT a holding by the Supreme Court. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Lincoln insisted that the South was still part of the union! Lincoln insisted that the South was still part of the union, and he violated Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution by admitting West Virginia as a state. The individuals creating the separate state of West Virginia were not duly elected officials representing the people of that region. In fact, they were known to be usurpers aided and abetted by force of arms to suppress the vote of the people in that region. Further, those soldiers used to suppress the popular vote in fact cast fraudulent votes for separate statehood. The court that gave legitimacy to the act was a stacked court created by the Radical Republicans. It was fraud from beginning to end.

If what you are saying is true, IB, then it is simply "business as usual" for the government.

If what you are saying is true, IB, then it is simply "business as usual" for the government. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Lincoln did a bunch of shit, violating the Constitution, civil liberties and such, that would get a modern president impeached.

Lincoln insisted that the South was still part of the union! Lincoln insisted that the South was still part of the union, and he violated Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution by admitting West Virginia as a state. The individuals creating the separate state of West Virginia were not duly elected officials representing the people of that region. In fact, they were known to be usurpers aided and abetted by force of arms to suppress the vote of the people in that region. Further, those soldiers used to suppress the popular vote in fact cast fraudulent votes for separate statehood. The court that gave legitimacy to the act was a stacked court created by the Radical Republicans. It was fraud from beginning to end. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hey Lincoln did what he did without any principle.

He had it both ways and every way it suited him and those people who spoke out were thrown in jail.

It was only after he was dead that anyone could take any action against him in the courts because IF THEY DID WHILE HE WAS ALIVE HE THREW THEM IN JAIL.

Anyone who wants to defend Lincoln has to defend that he closed down any paper who criticized him and threw in jail anyone who voiced opposition to him or threatend to take his illegal actions to court.

He was a tyrant of the purist kind as well as a blood thirsty warmonger.

He didn't give a shit about slaves or blacks or anybody.

I supposed he got blown, too, IBWhining!

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pitiful an pathetic pile of bullshit AKA Assup! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

.

You apply constrictions to the Declaration of Independence not found in its stated general purpose:

"Blah, blah, blah (deleted text from the Dec of Ind)" Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Once again. You are not good at this. Please stop.

I have NOT applied constrictions to the Declaration of Independence because I DO NOT HAVE TO.

You, on the other hand, are desperately trying to expand the Dec. of Ind into something it is not.

The Declaration of Independent is NOT and NEVER has been the law of the land. The law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. All the shit you posted - and I deleted - means nothing.

In the entire 220+ years since 1789, no lawyer, pleading before a court, who was on the losing end of a constitutional argument has ever said, "But, your honor, it does not matter that the Constitution does not support my position, because the Declaration of Independence clearly says ..." He would have been laughed out of court and then disbarred.

So, stop it. Stop it now. The more you dig your heels in, the worse you look.

The Declaration is an inspirational document, but that's it - at least with respect to the law.

Lincoln purposefully and pointedly did not recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation; hence, he was obliged to abide by the Constitution he claimed to be defending. Thus, his actions were unconstitutional regarding West Virginia per Art 4, Sec 3.

Madison and Jefferson's writings pertaining to the thoughts of the Founding Fathers regarding the union of the states are relevant to the question of secession. If the Father and author of the Constitution maintains such a right did exist, who the hell are you to claim differently? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Once again. Lincoln is not God. His thoughts and attitudes towards the Confederacy are not controlling. Even if he still thought they were part of the US, that is only HIS opinion. That is NOT a Supreme Court holding.

So, no, Article 4, Section 3 did not prevent WV from rejoining the Union.

Also, please point out where Madison explicitly stated there was a right to secede. The quote you post above says nothing of the kind. And, if Madison DID think there was a right to secede, how could he possibly have forgotten to put an explicit provision in the Constitution regarding such an important matter?

And, once again, like Lincoln, Madison is NOT God. His thoughts are influential, but they are not controlling. The ONLY thing that is controlling is the actual language that made it into the Constitution and was voted on by the legislatures.

Please stop with the scattershot quotes from the Founding Fathers that prove nothing and point to the actual law and how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the assembly requesting to organize as a separate state was not representative of the majority of the people who lived there -- it had no legitimacy -- and there is extant evidence that Union soldiers suppressed the popular vote and also cast fraudulent votes supporting independent statehood. The whole contrived process was unconstitutional from beginning to end. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That's an accusation, not a fact. Can you please point to some court ruling that said that fraud occurred and the process was unconstitutional?

And it is to be expected that Confederates would make that accusation. But, in reality, the 30 something counties of western Virginia were vehemently opposed to secession and descended into chaos as the Virginia legislature moved towards session. The VA legislature was actually disposed to considering letting them leave because the plantation parts of Virginia were worried about having the potentially treasonous mountain parts of the state remain in Virginia. The slave holders wanted to strength their majority by cutting the opposition out of the state. Before the issue was decisively settled, the war broke out and the union moved in. So, no one knows for sure how fair the elections were.

But, as it was pointed out, the Sup Court ruled in favor of West VA and against VA.

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1051891511]
Of further note is the use of the phrase "United States" which was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States].[/QUOTE]
Thank you, Mr. Language Person, for that wonderful lesson.

I have no idea how that is related to what we are discussing.

This other nonsense you posted regarding the Commerce Clause is just that: nonsense. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You clearly did not understand anything about how Courts construe the Constitution when ruling on legislation.

My point - which you missed - was that courts are NOT bound by the pronouncements and opinions of Congress or the President - not even Abraham Lincoln.

Congress said that it found the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance in the Commerce Clause. By 5-4, the Supreme Court justices said the Commerce Court did NOT give such a power. Unfortunately for opponents of Obamacare, John Roberts said that if you viewed it as tax instead, then the Congress DID havethe power under the income tax.

Lincoln insisted that the South was still part of the union! Lincoln insisted that the South was still part of the union, and he violated Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution by admitting West Virginia as a state. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That is your opinion only and it is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

What Abe Lincoln THOUGHT does NOT determine whether or not he violated the constitution - even if he was deliberately trying to. Even if he announced to the whole world that he was actually trying to violate the constitution.

His action would be unconstitutional only if he is sued and a court rules his action was unconstitutional.

That's the law. Sorry.Just like Obamacare. No matter how much you hate it, it is CONSTITUTIONAL. At least until another Supreme Court overrules its previous holding. That's why we have a court to decide these things for us.

The individuals creating the separate state of West Virginia were not duly elected officials representing the people of that region. In fact, they were known to be usurpers aided and abetted by force of arms to suppress the vote of the people in that region. Further, those soldiers used to suppress the popular vote in fact cast fraudulent votes for separate statehood. The court that gave legitimacy to the act was a stacked court created by the Radical Republicans. It was fraud from beginning to end. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

More unproven allegations by the Confederate sympathizer.