1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 02, 2022, 05:11:23 PM »Oh, you have seen the footage...BWAHAHA!!!
It's on Twitter. Want a link?
I found the footage.
https://twitter.com/NautPoso/status/1542320284216299526
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.
Oh, you have seen the footage...BWAHAHA!!!
It's on Twitter. Want a link?
https://twitter.com/NautPoso/status/1542320284216299526
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?
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.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/
From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:
Conclusion
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.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.
It was projection all along:
https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/
As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.
So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?
The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.
"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm
Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.
If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.
Apples & Oranges
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?
This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.
Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?