Started By
Message
re: Stone Mountain facade
Posted on 7/13/20 at 7:24 pm to AlaCowboy
Posted on 7/13/20 at 7:24 pm to AlaCowboy
quote:
the Constitution has been amended many times
Yes, what's your point? It was never amended to allow states to secede, thus making the action of Southern states treason.
You think an amendment allowing secession will ever be put forth by two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states (let alone ratified by three-fourths of the states)? Don't hold your breath.
It sounds like you just don't like the concept of majority rule if your view isn't in line with the majority.
This post was edited on 7/13/20 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 7/13/20 at 7:34 pm to grey
Interesting connection you're drawing...doesn't make much sense...but interesting. I guess we can assume you prefer that the pro-slavery crowd had won.
Are you that former head writer for Tucker Carlson? ??
Are you that former head writer for Tucker Carlson? ??
Posted on 7/14/20 at 2:13 am to Lucius Clay
nm
This post was edited on 7/14/20 at 2:43 am
Posted on 7/14/20 at 5:40 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
Yes, what's your point? It was never amended to allow states to secede, thus making the action of Southern states treason.
You think an amendment allowing secession will ever be put forth by two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states (let alone ratified by three-fourths of the states)? Don't hold your breath.
It sounds like you just don't like the concept of majority rule if your view isn't in line with the majority.
The Constitution does not state that no state is allowed to withdraw. The northern states decided not to allow any states to withdraw. I think majority rule would be a disaster. Imagine having a vote of all Americans on every law Congress proposes. That is why the Founding Fathers decided on a Constitutional Republic rather than a democracy.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 7:13 pm to AlaCowboy
quote:
The Constitution does not state that no state is allowed to withdraw.
It also doesn't state that states may withdraw, either...but it certainly implies it's not an option. Ever wonder why the Constitution has procedures for adding states but not for removing any???
The Constitution was framed around the idea of a new national government, with power to legislate over the states. "In order to form a more perfect union..." (more perfect than the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation).
But it's moot now. The Supreme Court has ruled on this several times, as far back as the 1869 Texas case when it declared secession illegal and that the states were part of an "indestructible Union."
It's sad that there are still people lamenting the outcome of the Civil War 155 years later. But this isn't really a surprise; there's good data showing that almost 20% of Trump supporters polled in 2016 believed that slavery should never have been abolished.
This post was edited on 7/15/20 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 7/15/20 at 8:08 pm to Lucius Clay
So it was pretty fricked up when the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves from the Confederate States. Slavery still legal in "The North" for a number of years after.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 9:46 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
The Constitution was framed around the idea of a new national government, with power to legislate over the states.
The Constitution also provided for limits on federal power. The Constitution was written expressly to limit the federal powers over the states. and nowhere in the constitution does it state that no state can vote to leave.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 9:49 pm to deeprig9
quote:
the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves from the Confederate States. Slavery still legal in "The North" for a number of years after.
Let me help you out... The Emancipation Proclamation technically didn't make slavery illegal anywhere. It was a military and symbolic move in 1863 to declare that slaves in areas outside Union control were free. Lincoln knew he had no authority to truly end slavery until after the war, which done with the 13th Amendment.
Posted on 7/15/20 at 9:53 pm to AlaCowboy
Well unfortunately the Supreme Court has disagreed with you about a dozen times, going back to 1869. But you can always revolt. Lol?
Posted on 7/16/20 at 12:01 pm to deeprig9
[quote]So it was pretty fricked up when the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves from the Confederate States. Slavery still legal in "The North" for a number of years after.[/quote]
You seem to be missing some grossly obvious points about federal and state laws and the timing of the civil war.
You seem to be missing some grossly obvious points about federal and state laws and the timing of the civil war.
Posted on 7/16/20 at 3:37 pm to Lucius Clay
quote:
The Emancipation Proclamation technically didn't make slavery illegal anywhere. It was a military and symbolic move in 1863 to declare that slaves in areas outside Union control were free. Lincoln knew he had no authority to truly end slavery until after the war, which done with the 13th Amendment.
Actually I believe the Emancipation Proclamation refers to slaves in states that are in"rebellion." Eleven states were in "rebellion" at least four slave states were not in rebellion. I can't remember if there were other states, not seceded, where slavery was legal other than DE, MD, KY and MO. It seems like slavery was still legal in NJ. In practical terms if the Union Army did not control an area it meant nothing.
Posted on 7/17/20 at 7:02 pm to FinleyStreet
quote:
Wonder how hard it would be to change the law around it.
Laws are like ice cream: easily melted. Besides, most stuff is no longer done through "law" anymore. It's administrative regulations and such. Much easier, and no interference from the filthy peasants.
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News