Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 456  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:46:33 AM »
Yes, it is. That is quite literally an anonymous claim.

Incorrect. If a newspaper says that "sources said" then it's anonymous. If they specify that their source in the Secret Service said it, then it's not totally anonymous. They are indicating that it's a source in the Secret Service. It's not a source which is "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability" according to that definition, since there is distinction and recognizability. Nor is is a source which is "not named or identified", since they are identified to a degree. They are indicating that the Secret Service said this and it's not left to the imagination that it might be from a random guy who works for Taco Bell. says that an anonymous source is someone who the journalist doesn't know the identification of -

    Often among journalists and especially among our critics, the term for sources we don’t name is “anonymous sources,” or we explain in a story that the source requested “anonymity.” But this term can be misleading or even inaccurate in ways that undercut the news organization’s credibility. The truth is that few, if any, news stories ever actually use any information from truly anonymous sources: people whose identities are unknown to the journalists or the news organization.

    Truly anonymous sources would be people who call us on the telephone with tips and refuse to give their names, anonymous commenters on our websites or someone contacting us through email or social media (or even in person) who refuse to identify themselves to us. Journalists get valuable tips in these ways but shouldn’t publish anything based on these sources. If you publish a story at all, you should use the tip as a starting point and find sources you trust — whether they will go on the record or not — on which to base a story.

They explain that it's called a confidential or "unnamed source" -

    This may appear a matter of semantics, but anything involving unnamed sources affects the credibility of your stories. And every tiny step you can take to assure the reader or viewer that you have tried to use reliable sources is important. Using terms such as “confidential” sources probably doesn’t build much confidence, but the word “anonymous” or “anonymity” can hurt your credibility, and isn’t accurate from your standpoint. So consider avoiding those terms.

    Journalists using unnamed sources usually know the sources well. If they are not sources you have used before, you should question them extensively about how they know what they are telling you and why they can’t go on the record. You might research their credentials to judge their veracity. Because of your pledge of confidentiality, you generally can’t vet sources by asking others about their credibility, but sometimes a confidential source can put you in touch with a trusted contact of yours who can vouch for her credibility.

So again, it's not an anonymous source.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:29:21 AM »
For the main claim, Metro says that NBC and the New York Times cited sources in the Secret Service. That's not an anonymous claim.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:17:52 AM »
Yes, he was asked about their denial and indicated that they were willing to testify under oath about it. The Secret Service is not disputing their claims and is apparently backing them. The Telegraph also indicates the same thing here:

The Telegraph -

Secret Service agents to testify in Donald Trump’s favour against ‘fraudulent’ Cassidy Hutchinson assault claim

    The two men will swear under oath that former president did not attack them when they refused to let him travel to scene of Capitol riots

    Two US Secret Service Agents are prepared to testify under oath that Donald Trump did not lunge at their throats and attempt to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when they refused to let him go to the Capitol on January 6.

    The astonishing claims were made on Tuesday at the Capitol riots hearing by Cassidy Hutchinson, a little-known former White House aide, who described an angry, defiant president trying to let armed protesters past security screenings at a rally that morning to protest against his 2020 election defeat.

    But that version of events is now under dispute.

    Bobby Engel, the agent who was driving “The Beast”, and security official Tony Ornato have reportedly admitted that the president was irate and demanded they drive towards the Capitol building to join his supporters.

    Anthony Gugliemi, a Secret Service spokesman, told NBC that the agents who were in Mr Trump’s presidential SUV were “available to testify under oath, responding to Hutchinson’s new allegations.”

    In blockbuster testimony, Ms Hutchinson told the Congressional Committee set up to investigate the events on January 6 that Mr Trump said: "I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now."

    “Bobby responded: ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing’,” she said.

    “The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr Engel grabbed his arm, and said ‘sir you need to take your hand off the steering wheel - we’re going back to the West Wing, we’re not going to the Capitol.’

    “Mr Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel and when Mr Ornato recounted this story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles.”
    However, both men deny that he grabbed the steering wheel or attempted to assault them, according to sources cited by local media.

    Responding to the claims, Mr Trump said: “Her fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is ‘sick’ and fraudulent.”

    In a statement, the Secret Service said it was cooperating fully with the committee and would continue to do so.

    “We learned of the new information shared at today’s hearing and plan on responding formally and on the record as soon as they can accommodate us,” it added.

Clearly, the Secret Service seems to be backing the positions of the secret service agents denying the story. They could have cleared it up for us if they were not, but they are.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 02:38:29 AM »
The source claiming that secret service are available to testify on this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 01:18:51 AM »
Quote from: stack
CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

For one, it was the POTUS’ rally and mob, not Biden’s. Like the mob would listen to the one person who they thought stole the election and the whole reason why they were there.::) Ludicrous logic on your part.
For two, by my logic it took the president elect to prompt DJT to actually do something. Sad that it had to come to that

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building. Claiming that it's not Joe Biden's problem is a ridiculous excuse making. So Joe Biden, the incoming president, sat around for hours watching the Capitol of the nation being invaded and he did nothing? By your very logic of Trump being an insurrectionist for calling for it to end at the time he did, Joe Biden is an insurrectionist for waiting around to call for it to end.

Incorrect. From the timeline you posted, minutes even before Trump ended his speech:

01:09 PM   Capitol Police chief to House & Senate Sergeant at Arms; wants emergency declaration & call in the Guard
01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

Trumps video was still 2.5 hours away.

What you posted just says that someone wanted to alert the Guard. Yet the guard wasn't deployed until 5:08 PM:

05:08 PM   Natl. Guard Cmdr. Gen. William Walker   receives deployment order                                    

By your logic the everyone who failed to alert the National Guard are also insurrectionists, including Mike Pence who didn't ask for the National Guard until 4:30. Where was everyone the hours prior while the capitol was being invaded according to you?

Quote from: stack
Not discredited yet. She was under oath. When the SS guys go under oath with the threat of perjury, that’s when you get to claim that.

Wrong. The Secret Service doesn't have to be under oath to make a statement. They said that the story was false. They also said that the Jan 6 Committee didn't even bother reaching out to them to confirm the story.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 04, 2022, 09:26:50 PM »
What is taking so long?

Likely because some of those early reports were of a single person entering the Capitol building through exit side doors as employees left, or of a single person in the building. When there were numbers of people on the premises the Capitol Police also spent a good while claiming that they had it under control, which is why the Capitol Police did not request help from the National Guard until later on in the timeline. In the timeline the Capitol Police did not request help from the National Guard until after Trump made his video.

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

Why should I have a better source? She's a Congresswoman. An authority on the matter. You like authorities on the matter. You are not an authority on the matter. She is.

"Discredited"? By you? Your argument is hugging a key witness discredits the entire proceedings? You'll have to do way better than that I'm afraid.

Actually her key witness was almost immediately discredited by the secret service.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 04, 2022, 11:01:09 AM »
He did tell them to go home when they were in the building. They were in the building when the video was published. They didn't get inside instantly. He posted the video approximately when other world leaders were condemning the event and about 10 minutes after Joe Biden called to end the riots.

Although this is clearly biased, a more detailed timeline is here, with the video in bold:

03:35 PM   Mike Pence   tweet: violence & destruction taking place at the US Capitol Must Stop & it Must Stop Now

03:54 PM   Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg   tweet: Unbelievable scenes from D.C. Responsibility rests on Trump to put a stop to this

04:06 PM   UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson   tweet: Disgraceful scenes in U.S. Congress . should be a peaceful . transfer of power

04:06 PM   Joe Biden   (on television) called for President Trump to end the riot

04:17 PM   TRUMP   video: praised mob & repeated claims of electoral fraud: “We love you. You're very special.” - [This is the video where he told the protestors to go home.]

04:22 PM   Capitol Police chief   makes verbal request to Natl Guard (again) for support

04:23 PM   Capitol Police chief   writes MEMO to Natl Guard seeking help
04:26 PM   Senator Josh Hawley   tweet: violence must end, those who attacked police and broke the law must be prosecuted

04:30 PM   Defense Sec. Chris Miller   call with Pence who asks to “clear the Capitol”                                    
04:32 PM   Defense Sec. Chris Miller   orders deployment of Guard      .                              

04:57 PM   New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy   announced New Jersey State Police were being deployed to the District of Columbia   
04:57 PM   New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy   announced New Jersey National Guard was prepared for deployment if necessary


So Trump waited around to tell the protestors to leave, but Joe Biden didn't wait around to call for it to end?

According to this the VP didn't even ask the Defense Secretary to "clear the Capitol" until after Trump had already posted his video.

Quote from: stack
Apparently incorrect:

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that it was former Vice President Mike Pence, not former President Donald Trump, who called for the military to defend the U.S. Capitol during the riot.

You should get a better source. Liz Cheney is the anti-trumper who is leading the discredited Jan 6 investigation. Here she is hugging the key witness:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 04, 2022, 05:07:44 AM »
He didn't stop them.

When they entered the building he told them to go home:

Quote from: Dr Van Nostrand
he didn't call Homeland Security

Actually Trump said that he deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement. See the 11 second mark in the following video: "I immediately deployed the National Guard and Federal Law Enforcement to secure the building"

It was also corroborated by officers in testimony that the National Guard was called:

    " This team of over 40 officers and non-
    commissioned officers immediately worked to recall the 154 D.C.
    National Guard personnel from their current missions,
    reorganize them, re-equip them, and begin to redeploy them to
    the Capitol. We also began to coordinate for the arrival of
    neighboring states that were committing National Guard forces
    into the District of Columbia. Simultaneously, we had to gather
    materials, do surveys, and plan for barrier materials to be
    moved to the Capitol in order to protect that institution and
    you, and many, many other tasks. This work continued with utter
    focus and urgency throughout the night of January 6 and well
    afterwards. "

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 04, 2022, 03:35:03 AM »
Quote from: honk
And just repeating "hearsay" really isn't a convincing reason to not believe Hutchinson.

Actually it was pointed out that the secret service and the agent involved rejected her story and implied that she was lying.

As far as I can tell, Trump's objections to this particular witness is that he did not make a total ass out of himself.  He doesn't actually deny the really damaging part which is that he tried to march with the mob but was prevented from doing so.

What would have been wrong with Trump wanting to march with the protestors? He didn't tell them to enter the building. When they did he, in fact, put out a video and told them to leave.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 02, 2022, 05:11:23 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 04:30:37 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided with the Southern states to split apart in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. Waiting for a super majority of states to agree on slavery would have solved the issue. A number of other countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 03:32:49 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 12:37:16 AM »
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 29, 2022, 11:56:49 PM »
Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.

You have been wrong in so many ways, and you are fundamentally wrong on this too. The ruling did not determine that secession is forbidden. It ruled that unilateral secession is forbidden.

    White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) - States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

Even according to this botched ruling that you cannot seem to defend the validity of if your life depended on it, secession is not forbidden.

Your original argument was that states should not have differing laws because it wasn't like the EU to where states could leave. You are incorrect. According to the ruling you are unable to defend it is possible for secession to occur. The majority states do have an option if they don't like that some states have different laws that they don't like; they could secede, or try to force those states to secede, or potentially accept their secession.

So, you're wrong. You have been wrong on every level, and are wrong about what you think this ruling determined.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 29, 2022, 04:35:32 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?



    The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 11:53:39 PM »
Quote from: stack
None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.

It was not an explicit declaration of war, but a declaration that the authority would no longer be recognized and that they had a right to self govern. The Declaration of Independence has been widely held as legitimate, and exists in a special extra-legal category which applied beyond the laws of any country.

So again, the issue has not been determined. The United States broke away from Great Britain, which has been seen as a natural right, and it simply did not matter what British judges had to say about it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:05:06 PM »
Here is liberal justice hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining that she thought justices were legislating on the bench with the Roe vs. Wade ruling -

Quote from: stack
The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. Rulings that do attempt act as new laws can be overturned as unconstitutional. SCOTUS merely acts to clarify an existing law. This is why Roe vs. Wade was thrown out. Justices were creating legislation from the bench. You have made no effort to show that the 1869 Texas v. White ruling is constitutional, or that there was an existing law on this at all.

You know that there was not an existing regulation. This is the exact sort of behavior this Supreme Court is ruling against.

Asking whether secession is legal is also a nonsensical question. When one political body secedes from another, the seceding body is rejecting the authority of the first. All laws in effect in the original nation are no longer applicable to the seceding nation, since it is no longer part of that original nation. This is what occurred when the United States peacefully seceded from Great Britain. It did not matter if it was legal in the British system of government for the US to do it or not. It was then the British government who acted as aggressors against the United States for walking away. The British government could have opted to let them go peacefully, but did not.

You are doing the equivalent of appealing to a British judge ruling that the US could not secede from Britain. It could and did, and that ruling would be irrelevant to the US. The British chose to become the aggressors. They could have simply chosen to let them leave, or perhaps have tried harder to negotiate their grievances before it got to that point. The US did make a good faith effort to negotiate with Britain at the time but were rebuffed on multiple occasions, leading to eventual secession.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:34:07 AM »
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring its union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declared that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:02:59 AM »
According to the Medium article posted the 1869 Supreme Court relied on the Articles of the Confederation in its constitutional argument, which is curious if true.

    The Supreme Court opinion relied on the supposed perpetual nature of the union. Whence did they obtain this idea? The Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the formal name of this document is “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.”

    The perpetual nature of the union, under the Articles of Confederation, is addressed in section XIII in the following phrase: “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual…” (Page on The ruling also made use of the preamble of the Constitution, something rarely done. But I guess all bets are off, when you are relying on the Articles of Confederation to support your constitutional argument. Specifically, the ruling made use of the fact that the Constitution was an attempt to “form a more perfect union” (Preamble).

    Utilizing on these two ideas, Supreme Court Justice Chase asked “What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” (LII / Legal Information Institute) One question that must be asked is “why must a perpetual union be inherently the most perfect kind of union?”

It doesn't really sound like that ruling was thought through. It defined the union from the Articles of Confederation as "perpetual" and then takes the "more perfect union" statement in the US Constitution to declare that it was a binding agreement that would last forever.

This site characterizes it in the same way:

    The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue that the Civil War had raised: could a state lawfully secede from the union? The Court sided with the victors in the war; secession, it held, was not constitutionally permissible. The Court appealed to the provision in the Articles of Confederation declaring the union to be “perpetual,” and to the preamble of the Constitution “ordaining” a “more perfect union.” “It is difficult,” Chase remarked, “to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” Chase concluded, “The Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.”

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 07:25:11 AM »
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

    "This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

On what basis exactly, does Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

The tenth amendment gives powers not determined in the Constitution to the states to decide on their own:

    How does another nation become a state in the union? Congress must vote to allow the nation to become a state. This is clearly written in ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1 (Article IV). However, there is nothing in the constitution about how a state can go about leaving the union. Neither is there anything in the constitution saying that a state cannot leave the union. Therefore, as per the tenth amendment, the federal government has no authority on the matter, and it is the decision is left to each individual state. To demand that the states lack the power to seceded is to ignore the tenth amendment itself

What is the rebuttal to this? The Confederate states used the same argument:

    The Confederate states did not consider secession an act of rebellion. In fact, they argued that leaving the United States was well within the states’ legal powers under the Constitution. Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) of Virginia was elected president of the Confederacy. He and other Confederate leaders argued that the states had voluntarily entered the Union when they ratified the Constitution; therefore, it was logical that any state could voluntarily leave it.

    Davis also used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for secession. Since the Constitution did not give the federal government any powers to regulate secession (in fact, the Constitution made no mention of secession whatsoever), the Tenth Amendment must grant the power of secession to the states.

There has to be something more coherent than "nah-uh" and mumblings about how a perfect union is forever here.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 456  Next >