Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Assup's mommy didn't hug him enough when he was a kid.

.

[Yssup Rider]

Misquoting me again. I guess we're going to have to report you to the DIPSHIT POLICE. IBCrying.

I think I'll miss you as much as I do The Whineman and Marshall... Which quite frankly isn't at all!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Frankly, ASSUP IS A DIPSHIT that can't find his dumb-ass at all!

.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You argued admitting West Virginia was constitutional, moron, but now you are trying to scurry away from that lame-ass POV. It violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution, so it WASN'T constitutional! Own your failures, you pretentious bitch!

I did argue that and I still do. That fact that the SCt. was not required to reach the constitutional issues in VA vs. WVa does not mean it was unconstitutional, idiot.

BTW, can you cite something from McPherson or Randall where they specifically mention Article IV, Section 3? Not that I would think their opinion would settle anything, but all I have read from you is that they allegedly documented a bunch of fraud in the election that was held. That's not the same as saying that Article IV, Section 3 prevented WVa from seceding from VA and rejoining the Union. That only means the election was not properly carried out, not that it was unconstitutional.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

. THIS WORTHLESS COCKSUCKER MISQUOTES YSSUP RIDER IN EVERY SINGLE POST. NO WONDER HE'S DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR!

Nice cartoon, Bob Kane. I suppose you'll next be penning a comic book about a superhero named BUTTMANN!

Dipshit!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Assup is bragging about a new comic book character based on Assup, it's called "Buttman".

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I did argue that and I still do. That fact that the SCt. was not required to reach the constitutional issues in VA vs. WVa does not mean it was unconstitutional, idiot.

BTW, can you cite something from McPherson or Randall where they specifically mention Article IV, Section 3? Not that I would think their opinion would settle anything, but all I have read from you is that they allegedly documented a bunch of fraud in the election that was held. That's not the same as saying that Article IV, Section 3 prevented WVa from seceding from VA and rejoining the Union. That only means the election was not properly carried out, not that it was unconstitutional.

One more time, for the mental midget ExNYer. Randall's argument is AG Bates' argument expanded, and Randall argues the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution (pp. 452-453, 1964 ed.). McPherson's argument is that the separate state of West Virginia was not established by provisons enumerated in the Constitution, but rather he argues the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 and describes how it was established by illegal elections, fallacious representatives and by force of arms (pp. 298-299). And it remains, the article you cited stated the constitutionality of West Virgina's independent statehood was never pointedy ruled on by the Supreme Court. A criminal act not prosecuted does not negate nor "disappear" the criminal act. All of this was stated before, you pretentious and ignorant prick.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Misquoting me again. I guess we're going to have to report you to the DIPSHIT POLICE. IBCrying.

I think I'll miss you as much as I do The Whineman and Marshall... Which quite frankly isn't at all!

WHO'S READY TO FREE UP SPACE ON THEIR ECCIE PAGE?

LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS ASSHOLE ON IGNORE!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One more time, for the mental midget ExNYer. Randall's argument is AG Bates' argument expanded, and Randall argues the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution (pp. 452-453, 1964 ed.). McPherson's argument is that the separate state of West Virginia was not established by provisons enumerated in the Constitution, but rather he argues the process violated Art IV, Sec 3 and describes how it was established by illegal elections, fallacious representatives and by force of arms (pp. 298-299). And it remains, the article you cited stated the constitutionality of West Virgina's independent statehood was never pointedy ruled on by the Supreme Court. A criminal act not prosecuted does not negate nor "disappear" the criminal act. All of this was stated before, you pretentious and ignorant prick.

Dipshit: Stop referencing "criminal act". This doesn't involve crime and there is no "prosecution".

It is a legal dispute between states about the procedure by which WVa re-entered the Union. And it was tried before the SCt., which ruled in WVa's favor because the VA legislature was bound by the decisions of the governor in the handling of the election. So they were stuck with the governors decisions and could not attempt to plead fraud. That's the reason they never had to make a decision on constitutionality.

And the cites in Randall and McPherson are no more that 2 pages in length. I've never heard of a constitutional analysis that is only 2 pages long. I'd like to see exactly what they said, since I don't trust you for shit.You are the Queen of Cut-and-Paste. How come you can't cut-and-past those two pages?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

ASSUP SAYS LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT ASSUP THE ASSHOLE ON IGNORE!

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Dipshit: Stop referencing "criminal act". This doesn't involve crime and there is no "prosecution".

Voter suppression by armed men!?! Illegal voting!?! Perjury before Congress!?! Since when were such acts not illegal, you pretentious dipshit?

Originally Posted by ExNYer

It is a legal dispute between states about the procedure by which WVa re-entered the Union. And it was tried before the SCt., which ruled in WVa's favor because the VA legislature was bound by the decisions of the governor in the handling of the election. So they were stuck with the governors decisions and could not attempt to plead fraud. That's the reason they never had to make a decision on constitutionality.

And the cites in Randall and McPherson are no more that 2 pages in length. I've never heard of a constitutional analysis that is only 2 pages long. I'd like to see exactly what they said, since I don't trust you for shit.You are the Queen of Cut-and-Paste. How come you can't cut-and-past those two pages?

The pages cited marked where the authors made their concluding arguments. You'll need to buy the books or go to the library, you cheap pretentious bastard!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Voter suppression by armed men!?! Illegal voting!?! Perjury before Congress!?! Since when were such acts not illegal, you pretentious dipshit?

Your ignorance is overwhelming. The case was tried before the SCt, which had original jurisdiction. It was not a criminal case. The SCt settles disputes between states.

To put it differently, in the case of VA vs. WVa, who do you think would have gone to jail? West Virginia?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The pages cited marked where the authors made their concluding arguments. You'll need to buy the books or go to the library, you cheap pretentious bastard!

So, in other words, you never fucking read it. You just cut-and-pasted it from somewhere else.

But that's all right. If you say those two pages are where their conclusions are, I'll read the conclusions. Cut-and-paste, great Queen.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

[SIZE=3]Your ignorance is overwhelming. The case was tried before the SCt, which had original jurisdiction. It was not a criminal case. The SCt settles disputes between states.

To put it differently, in the case of VA vs. WVa, who do you think would have gone to jail? West Virginia? Persist in your willful and ignorant blindness, you pretentious jackass. The unconstitutional process was filled with illegal acts.

So, in other words, you never fucking read it. You just cut-and-pasted it from somewhere else.

But that's all right. If you say those two pages are where their conclusions are, I'll read the conclusions. Cut-and-paste, great Queen.

Once again you are wrong, you pretentious jackass. Read McPherson's book years ago. McPherson's book is considered the one-volume touchstone on this period of history, and it is still subject to copyright laws. Randall's book arrived in the mail Saturday -- and read the pertinent chapter on-line as cited above. Whereas, your lame ass never progressed beyond citing a wiki article that refuted your lame-ass POV, you pretentious jackass. You'll need to buy the books or go to the library, you cheap, pretentious bastard!

Persist in your willful and ignorant blindness, you pretentious jackass. The unconstitutional process was filled with illegal acts.

[Yssup Rider]

Just ignore the cretin...

He'll post thread after thread by himself in the dark.

then I suppose he'll call himself pretentious.