Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's just another sub-plot in a thread that is so typical of Sandbox threads.

Thank you. Just checking.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FACT: You didn't "cite" the article at all! You just posted text from the article; that's "improper citation" or "plagiarism": your choice.

I'll take plagiarism for $200, Alex.

As you so often do in threads, you've thrown a pile of shit at the wall to see what sticks. When nothing does, you simply double down on wrong arguments, change the subject, or throw more shit at the wall.

You've cited a section of the constitution out of context to try and say WVa rejoined in an unconstitutional manner. As I've posted above,the "explicitly stated process" outlined in Art IV, Sec 3 protects a "state" from being carved up by other states or the Federal Government. That it the only thing it proscribes. That's a "state" got it? A member of the Union. Words have meaning.

When Virginia seceded, it was no longer a state (even if bad man Lincoln thought it was!). It was then part of another country. Just like Texas was once part of Mexico. Then, 39 counties in the western part of VA broke away to rejoin the Union. At that point, VA could not turn to the protections of Article IV, Section 3 because VA was NOT a state - by its own declaration. Just like Mexico could not invoke Article IV to get back Texas or California. As I said before, Confederates cannot have it both ways.

So no, West Virginia did not rejoin the Union in an unconstitutional manner. Article IV, Section 3 doesn't apply and never will.

And, by the way, the western counties of VA rebelled against secession even BEFORE Union troops moved in.

I also asked you to cite a constitutional scholar that agreed that WVa improperly rejoined the Union, rather than an historian who does not know the law. And what do you do? You come back with another historian!

So, you keep citing historians instead of legal scholars. That's "stubbornness" or "poor reading comprehension": your choice.

But, I'll take it that you cannot find a reputable legal scholar to back up your point.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was complicit in that the Radical Republicans pointedly denied President Johnson three appointments; thus, Congress had stacked the justices against Virginia.

A perfect example of inability to read or mulish stubbornness.

How can the Court be "complicit" in something legal? Especially if the Court can't control it. That's like saying they engaged in a conspiracy to eat dinner.The Congress is permitted to reduce the size of the Supreme Court. And they did.

And Congress didn't even stack the justices. They were already on the court. Congress can't even nominate justices. The President does that. Congress can only vote on the ones the President nominates. Congress simply prevented Johnson from nominating new ones to replace old ones.

Smart tactics, but nothing wrong with it. It is about POWER and Congress had it.

Confederate sympathizers may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. That just makes it extra enjoyable.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I'll take plagiarism for $200, Alex.

As you so often do in threads, you've thrown a pile of shit at the wall to see what sticks. When nothing does, you simply double down on wrong arguments, change the subject, or throw more shit at the wall.

You've cited a section of the constitution out of context to try and say WVa rejoined in an unconstitutional manner. As I've posted above,the "explicitly stated process" outlined in Art IV, Sec 3 protects a "state" from being carved up by other states or the Federal Government. That it the only thing it proscribes. That's a "state" got it? A member of the Union. Words have meaning.

When Virginia seceded, it was no longer a state (even if bad man Lincoln thought it was!). It was then part of another country. Just like Texas was once part of Mexico. Then, 39 counties in the western part of VA broke away to rejoin the Union. At that point, VA could not turn to the protections of Article IV, Section 3 because VA was NOT a state - by its own declaration. Just like Mexico could not invoke Article IV to get back Texas or California. As I said before, Confederates cannot have it both ways.

So no, West Virginia did not rejoin the Union in an unconstitutional manner. Article IV, Section 3 doesn't apply and never will.

And, by the way, the western counties of VA rebelled against secession even BEFORE Union troops moved in.

I also asked you to cite a constitutional scholar that agreed that WVa improperly rejoined the Union, rather than an historian who does not know the law. And what do you do? You come back with another historian!

So, you keep citing historians instead of legal scholars. That's "stubbornness" or "poor reading comprehension": your choice.

But, I'll take it that you cannot find a reputable legal scholar to back up your point.


A perfect example of inability to read or mulish stubbornness.

How can the Court be "complicit" in something legal? Especially if the Court can't control it. That's like saying they engaged in a conspiracy to eat dinner.The Congress is permitted to reduce the size of the Supreme Court. And they did.

And Congress didn't even stack the justices. They were already on the court. Congress can't even nominate justices. The President does that. Congress can only vote on the ones the President nominates. Congress simply prevented Johnson from nominating new ones to replace old ones.

Smart tactics, but nothing wrong with it. It is about POWER and Congress had it.

Confederate sympathizers may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. That just makes it extra enjoyable.

Then plagiarism it is, ExNYer!

BTW, what part of "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress" was taken out of context?

Scurry, scurry, scurry, ExNYer, sooner or later you'll find a hole to hide in.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by icuminpeace

But I do agree that the U.S. should shoot dead every Texan trying to illegally immigrate into the U.S. Was that racist? I don't know but your rant sure sounded racist.

I think that is too harsh, I happen to know a number of Texans who are really good people. Sonya Playmate in San Antonio comes quickly to mind for one. There are even some who are not providers.

But was his post racist? Of course it was--because he is. He's right up there (or down there) with Wacky Waco.

[ChoomCzar]

The pussy said, "When Virginia seceded, it was no longer a state (even if bad man Lincoln thought it was!)."



HOW THE FUCK IS LINCOLN WRONG?........it was a civil war!........fuckin' proven coward dumbass liberal..........

[markroxny]

Ok, so the argument here is that W VA is not legally a state? Is that what you guys are trying to prove to us?

Um...then what is it?

[ChoomCzar]

Originally Posted by Old-farT

But was his post racist? Of course it was--because he is. He's right up there (or down there) with Wacky Waco.

YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE WORST LIBERAL CRIME....HYPOCRISY!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


The false liberal sense of moral superiority goes, "I voted for the negro, I am good because I voted for the negro, look how good I am!"

Racial politics is about voting for people based upon their race rather than the content of their character......it's non-racist and patriotic to oppose Bath House Barry......

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Ok, so the argument here is that W VA is not legally a state? Is that what you guys are trying to prove to us?

Um...then what is it?

Marks-rocks-with-pee, you've just put yourself in the same category with Ekim the Inbred: an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Marks-rocks-with-pee, you've just put yourself in the same category with Ekim the Inbred: an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.

I'm sorry was that an answer to the question?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

I'm sorry

There was never any doubt about that!

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm stupid and I just like to argue and say the same thing over and over as a way of getting attention

I know IB. It's ok.

[icuminpeace]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I think that is too harsh, I happen to know a number of Texans who are really good people. Sonya Playmate in San Antonio comes quickly to mind for one. There are even some who are not providers.

But was his post racist? Of course it was--because he is. He's right up there (or down there) with Wacky Waco.

Old-T, I was just giving TAE a taste of his own medicine. Of course there are some great Texans in Texas. In reality, shooting is too harsh. Perhaps a 500,000 V fence will do the trick (again, just kidding).

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by markroxny

I'm stupid

That's obvious, marks-rocks-with-pee. That is why it has been necessary to repeat the simplest, most obvious facts in order to help facilitate your understanding.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't know what I'd do with myself If i couldn't find things to argue about.

I noticed.

[Guest032516]

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1051898665]
BTW, what part of "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress" was taken out of context?[/QUOTE]

All of it obviously. Can't you read?

Section IV, Section 3, apples to to a "state". Virginia had declared itself no longer state. It claimed to be part of another county - the Confederacy. So, if that's true, how is it any different than the province of Ontario in Canada? Why should they be able to invoke Article 4, Section 3?

Do you NOT get that? I've written that like 9 times.

Now scurry off and find a legal scholar that thinks you're right.

Better yet, come back with a response that explains why Virginia still WOULD be a state after it seceded. Can you do that? is there a Confederate website that explains that?