Confedferate Soldxiers are American Veterans by law.

That might have been a good question had I ever claimed any of the Confederates were traitors.

 

Really?

Nope, nothing there that says a state can not make the choice to leave the Union.

And in fact, many parts of the United States have indeed left the Union, with no wars fought over it. The most recent I can think of was 36 years ago in fact. The fact is, several parts of the United States have broken off to become full and independent nations.

So once again, the question remains, what part of the Constitution states that a State can not leave the Union?

 

I am basically tired of going in circles over this, so I am going to give the simple answer to the question I have been posing "Is it allowed in the Constitution for a state to seceede?"

The answer here is quite simply "Yes", nowhere in the Constitution does it address this issue, and by the nature of the Constitution, any right or power not prohibited is allowed.

Now, let's answer the real question, "Is it allowable for a state to seceede?"

No, it is not. But the answer to this is not in the Constitution, it is in the original framework of our nation, the Articles of Confederation (or to use the complete name, the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union". And in the opening, it quite clearly states:

And emphacized once again in the closing Article, Article XIII:

Now the reason why this is important is that the Constitution did not abolish the AoC, it simply replaced it. And like revising a contract, unless the new contract specifically states that the old one is obsolete and no longer binding, the parts of the old contract not affected by the new one are still valid.

Therefore, the fact that states are not allowed to seceede is due to the original contract between the states, the people, and the government.

But it was entertaining I must admit, to see people over and over try to bend the Constitution to try to make it say something that it does not say.

And not only am I saying this, but the Supreme Court also holds the same belief. Already before, the case of Texas Vs. White was brought up. And in it, the issue of secession being allowed or not allowed was resolved by the SCOTUS. However, in it's decision, it states rather clearly:

So even the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of what is and is not Constititutional states that this is not passed from the Constitution at all, but by the Articles of Confederation.

 

You've said this numerous times now. Is there a reason you're being purposefully vague about it?

I've asked (post #259) earlier and you didn't answer.

Could you give it a shot? Go on and tell us about this unilateral secession, your "territory leaving the US."

 

I can think of one off the top of my head, the Philippines.

Look, just because your concept of history is shallow and one-sided, do not assume that that is the case with everybody. I actually thought that it was so obvious, I was amazed I even had to answer that.

Panama Canal Zone, Micronesia, Palau, Marshall Islands, and one of the most obvious: Cuba.

 

Apparently you missed the word unilateral there.

Pretty important word.

You asked "If it was not treason for them to leave the United States, why is it treason this time?" referring to your territories.

Did those territories acquire their independence unilaterally?
Yes or no?

There's your answer.

 

Yeah, really.

Perhaps the difference between "implicit" and "explicit" escapes you.

Which of course doesn't have a damn thing to do with secession.

You'd have done every bit as well to cite the Code of Hammurabi.

A distinction without a difference.

See the supremacy clause.

There is no part of the AoC which was unaffected by the Constitution, because whereas the former was itself the supreme law of the land on 6/20/1788, on 6/21/1788 it was not. Moreover, because acts of Congress made in pursuance of the Constitution are part of the supreme law of the land, they supersede, in case of conflict, anything that is not.

But if you find that unconvincing, I double dog dare ya to cite an instance of any person or entity being compelled to answer in court for a violation of any AoC provision after 6/21/1788. And I haven't done a lick of research on the issue, so I'm standing here with eyes closed, arms akimbo and head thrust forward, daring you to take your best shot; and I don't expect to feel so much as a slight breeze.

Nonsense.

Actually the quote you provide does not speak to that issue.

Allow me to direct your attention to A7 of the Constitution, which makes it binding on the first nine states to ratify, which means the remaining four of the original thirteen would legally have been free agents, since the AoC required unanimous consent for amendments. Is it your position that the refusal of one of the four to ratify would have rendered the Constitution legally null and void, for failure to uphold the perpetual union requirement?

So which of those was ever a state?

 

Just one constitutional scholar who's college transcripts aren't hidden.

Remember like all history books, you are just reading one individuals opinion of events that took place. And when it comes to the American Civil War, the winners get to write the history.

Just a short excerpt:

FYI:
>" it was after the Civil War that the notion of being &#8220;American&#8221; became widely accepted."<

Before 1861 most Americans didn't look at themselves as Americans but looked upon themselves as New Yorkers or Virginians, or Californians or Ohioans, etc. They held their loyalty to the state they lived in or came from. When Davy Crockett died defending the Alamo in 1836, he identified himself as a Tennessean.

 

Funny, because the Supreme Court in Texas Vs. White used the AoC as the basis for their finding.

Strange, how the body that makes the ultimate decisions if a law is "Constitutional" or not find the very things I quoted of utmost importance, yet you absolutely blow them off and say they do not apply.

 

Like I said, not even the hint of a breeze.

Hey, I've referred to that AoC provision in debates like this myself, but never on the absurd pretense that anything in the AoC is still binding law - a pretense I'm pretty sure you won't find any trace of in TvW either.