Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[ChoomCzar]

Originally Posted by ExMan

As for you CumCzar, you win things only in your own mind. and apparently I win over you in your mind too! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I'm living rent free in your head! Where's your argument about Lincoln! LOL!You can pat yourself on the back all you like, you are still a pathetic, racist, homophobic little man. And always will be.

And there is zero point in responding to IB Hankering any more. As someone pointed out above, he keeps posting more and more unrelated shit or misquoted or irrelevant stuff until he wears you out. He thinks if he gets the last post he wins.

He cut and pasted an enormous quote from McPherson above that relies on diary notes from Lincoln's attorney general, but as usual he doesn't cite any legal scholars or case law. The one case on point, Virginia vs. W. VA went against him. MacPherson appears to be a Southern apologist, so I'm not surprised he's relying on diary entries and not a legal decision.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I asked him if he knew the difference between: 1) "tried before" (or "brought before") the Supreme Court and 2) the Supreme Court "not ruling" on the issue of constitutionality.

He responded that I was wrong because "tried before" and "brought before" mean the same thing. Which is true, but that was NOT what I asked him - notice where the 1) and the 2) are placed in the question. So apparently he cannot read.

The comparison was between 1) "tried before/brought before" the SCt on the one hand and 2) the SCt. "not ruling" on an issue on the other hand.

The Shelby Foote quote from above is another example. I remember Foote saying it in the Ken Burns PBS series "The Civil War" back in 1990.

It is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant to the issue of secession.

So, I'm not even going to address his enormous posts. I have wasted FAR too much time in this post. IB apparently doesn't have a demanding job. I do.

And IBHwill just go back to posting from more Southern sympathizers, not legal holdings, especially not VA vs. WVa.

But here is a question to ponder. If something is unconstitutional, it is always unconstitutional. The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction Era are long gone. The Supreme Court can always reverse its earlier holdings (Brown v. Board of Ed.). So, what is to prevent Virginia from bringing suit TODAY for violation of Article IV, section 3, and demanding the return of West VA?

Perhaps because no one things it will work? Other than Confederate sympathizers, that is.

Yep, IBH destroyed you too! LOL!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

As for you CumCzar, you win things only in your own mind. You can pat yourself on the back all you like, you are still a pathetic, racist, homophobic little man. And always will be.

And there is zero point in responding to IB Hankering any more. As someone pointed out above, he keeps posting more and more unrelated shit or misquoted or irrelevant stuff until he wears you out. He thinks if he gets the last post he wins.

He cut and pasted an enormous quote from McPherson above that relies on diary notes from Lincoln's attorney general, but as usual he doesn't cite any legal scholars or case law. The one case on point, Virginia vs. W. VA went against him. MacPherson appears to be a Southern apologist, so I'm not surprised he's relying on diary entries and not a legal decision.

Regarding the Supreme Court, I asked him if he knew the difference between: 1) "tried before" (or "brought before") the Supreme Court and 2) the Supreme Court "not ruling" on the issue of constitutionality.

He responded that I was wrong because "tried before" and "brought before" mean the same thing. Which is true, but that was NOT what I asked him - notice where the 1) and the 2) are placed in the question. So apparently he cannot read.

The comparison was between 1) "tried before/brought before" the SCt on the one hand and 2) the SCt. "not ruling" on an issue on the other hand.

The Shelby Foote quote from above is another example. I remember Foote saying it in the Ken Burns PBS series "The Civil War" back in 1990.

It is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant to the issue of secession.

So, I'm not even going to address his enormous posts. I have wasted FAR too much time in this post. IB apparently doesn't have a demanding job. I do.

And IBH will just go back to posting from more Southern sympathizers, not legal holdings, especially not VA vs. WVa.

As the saying goes "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

IBH definitely has the weight of experience working for him.

But here is a question to ponder. If something is unconstitutional, it is always unconstitutional. The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction Era are long gone. The Supreme Court can always reverse its earlier holdings (Brown v. Board of Ed.). So, what is to prevent Virginia from bringing suit TODAY for violation of Article IV, section 3, and demanding the return of West VA?

Perhaps because no one things it will work? Other than Confederate sympathizers, that is.

You're an ignorant and inveterate liar, ExNYer!!! Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates: both a lawyer and a judge and other men in Congress and in the Lincoln administration – all properly cited above (from J.G. Randall and the New York Times; not McPherson!) – determined and advised Lincoln that the process was unconstitutional BEFORE Lincoln acted on the matter. Those citations were neither misquoted nor irrelevant, but they sure as hell render your POV worthless!

Read lawyer, judge and Attorney General Bates' judgment again, you blathering ignoramus:

THE CASE OF WEST VIRGINIA.; Opinion of Attorney-General Bates. Hon. A.F. Ritchu. Virginia Convention, Wheeling:
Published: December 27, 1862


ATTORNEY-GENERAL's OFFICE, Aug. 12, 1861.

SIR: your letter of the 9th instant was received within this hour, and as you ask an immediate answer, you, of couse, will not expect me to go elaborately into the subject.

I have thought a great deal upon the question of dividing the State of Virginia into two States; and since I came here, as a member of the Government, I have conversed with a good many, and corresponded with some, of the good men of Western Virginia in regard to that matter. In all this intercourse, my constant and earnest effort has been to impress upon the minds of those gentlemen the vast importance -- not to say necessity -- In this terrible crisis of our National affairs, to abstain from the introduction of any new elements of revolution, to avoid, as far as possible, all new and original theories of Government; but, on the contrary, in all the insurgent Commonwealths to adhere, as closely as circumstances will allow, to the old constitutional standard of principle, and to the traditional habits and thoughts of the people. And I still think that course is dictated by the plainest teachings of prudence.

The formation of a new State out of Western Virginia is an original, independent act of revolution, I do not deny the power of revolution, (I do not call it right -- for it is never prescribed, it exists in force only, and has and can have no law but the will of the revolutionists.) Any attempt to carry it out involves a plain breach of both the Constitutions -- of Virginia and the nation. And hence it is plain that you cannot take that course without weakening, if not destroying, your claims upon the sympathy and support of the General Government; and without disconcerting the plan already adopted both by Virginia and the General Government, for the reorganization of the revolted States, and the restoration of the integrity of the Union. That plan, I understand to be this: When a State, by its perverted functionaries, has declared itself out of the Union, we avail ourselves of all the sound and loyal elements of the State -- all who own allegiance to and claim protection of the Constitution, to form a State Government as nearly as may be, upon the former model, and claiming to be the very State which has been, in part, overthrown by the successful rebellion. In this way we establish a constitutional nucleus around which all the shattered elements of the Commonwealth may meet and combine, and thus restore the old State to its original integrity.This, I verily thought, was the plan adopted at Wheeling, and recognized and acted upon by the General Government here. Your Convention annulled the revolutionary proceedings at Richmond, both in the Convention and General Assembly, and your new Governor formally demanded of the President the fulfillment of the constitutional guarantee in favor of Virginia -- Virginia as known to our fathers and to us. The President admitted the obligation and promised his best efforts to fulfill it; and the Senate admitted your Senators, not as representing a new and nameless State, now for the first time heard of in our history, but as representing "the good old Commonwealth."

Must all this be undone, and a new and hazardous experiment be ventured upon, at the moment when dangers and difficulties are thickening around us? I hope not; for the sake of the Nation and the State, I hope not. I bad rejoiced in the movement in Western Virginia, as a legal, constitutional and safe refuge from revolution and anarchy, as at once an example and fit instrument for the restoration of all the revolted States.

I have not time now to discuss the subject in its various bearings. What I have written, is written with a running pen, and will need your charitable criticism.

If I had time I think I could give persuasive reasons for declining the attempt to create a new State at this perilous time. At another time. I might be willing to go fully into the question, but now I can say no more. Most respectfully, your ob't serv't,
EDW. BATES.

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/12/27/ne...-virginia.html

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're an ignorant and inveterate liar, ExNYer!!!

Read lawyer, judge and Attorney General Bates' judgment again, you blathering ignamus

Differences of opinions do not constitute lies. I do not call you a liar because of your opinions.

And honest mistakes do not constitute lies either. Above you incorrectly accused me of plagiarism until you realized I had put in a WiKi cite. Still, I did not call you a liar based on your mistake.

A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Can you point out a deliberate falsehood? If so, how would you know? Can you read my mind?

Thank you for proving what I and others have said about your posting habits.

The term "narcissistic personality disorder" comes to mind. If it is any consolation, ChoomCzar has it even worse and he combines it with Tourette's.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Differences of opinions do not constitute lies. I do not call you a liar because of your opinions.

And honest mistakes do not constitute lies either. Above you incorrectly accused me of plagiarism until you realized I had put in a WiKi cite. Still, I did not call you a liar based on your mistake.

A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Can you point out a deliberate falsehood? If so, how would you know? Can you read my mind?

Thank you for proving what I and others have said about your posting habits.

The term "narcissistic personality disorder" comes to mind. If it is any consolation, ChoomCzar has it even worse and he combines it with Tourette's.

You deliberately and repeatedly – repeatedly – claimed that the cited judgments rendered by Attorney General Bates, Secretary Welles and Congressman Stevens were irrelevant because they pointedly contravened your “opinion”. James McPherson researched and factually documented from original source documents how Federal troops suppressed the vote of those citizens who aspired to vote against independent statehood and how many of those said soldiers illegally voted in the referendum for statehood. McPherson’s conclusion is that West Virginia would not have become a separate state without those soldiers at the polls. The Shelby Foote quote is also relevant because it illustrates a post Civil War shift in the way citizens perceived the federal system of government formed by the Constitution. Bates’ argument is lucid and stringently exposes the folly of Lincoln’s claim that he was “defending” the nation as founded by the Constitution while violating the tenets of the very document he claimed to be defending. Bates judged such action violated the Constitution. Lincoln turned a blind eye to the voter suppression and recognized a band of power-hungry politicians that did not represent citizens of Virginia or even the majority of the citizens living in what would become West Virginia. That Lincoln and others did so was a “legal fiction”. Furthermore, despite your fallacious argument otherwise – which you keep repeating, Virginia vs West Virginia does not explicitly address the question regarding the constitutionality of the process by which West Virginia became a state. That process was clearly in violation of Art IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, and thus it was unconstitutional. Again, the failure to prosecute a crime does not mitigate the criminal nature of the criminal act.

[Yssup Rider]

God damn, usually when I read that much, there's a punch line, a reward or an ah HA.

Unfortunately with you, there's just more blithering, blather and bullshit.

Folks are in the ignoring mood around here. I suppose you can tell that by all of those threads where you post six or eight times without response.

Kepp this shit up and there'll be a lot more of them. You, Marshall and COG alone in your own little bubble.

Enjoy that, diarrhea mouth!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

God damn, usually when I read that much, there's a punch line, a reward or an ah HA.

Unfortunately with you, there's just more blithering, blather and bullshit.

Folks are in the ignoring mood around here. I suppose you can tell that by all of those threads where you post six or eight times without response.

Kepp this shit up and there'll be a lot more of them. You, Marshall and COG alone in your own little bubble.

Enjoy that, diarrhea mouth!

You're a dumb-ass jackass, Assup. You spout bullshit about "ignoring" and "not caring"; yet, your dumb-ass suborns your stupid-ass post when you stupidly admit you read everything you said you didn't care about.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a dumb-ass jackass, Assup. You spout bullshit about "ignoring" and "not caring"; yet, your dumb-ass suborns your stupid-ass post when you stupidly admit you read everything you said you didn't care about.

Now, now I B Crying! I understand your plight. You lost an election by a 62% - 38% margin. But it was just an election.

You need to work on controlling your temper!

Why can't we all just get along??????

[Yssup Rider]

I think IBCrying has been served again.

amazing that most of us can get him to explode in 25 words or less. He can't speak his piece without taking a half a page...

Pathetic dipshit!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Assup’s spastic sphincter is dribbling-blather, spouting shit and foaming spatter!

.

[Old-T]

[QUOTE=ChoomCzar;1051905852]

Originally Posted by Old-farT

MadDog20/20 is an alcoholic beverage marketed to and generally consumed by negros......typical racist stereotype attributing the consumption of that beverage to someone you hate!

You never cease to amaze me marshall. I never realized you could open your mouth and be even MORE stupid sounding than normal, but you did it. There is no such racial connotation, only in your demented mind.

MD is associated with underaged HS kids and others with small incomes--those who value quantity over quality. Like you. I mentioned no racial group. I impled no racial group. I used no code word for any racial group. See: http://www.bumwine.com/md2020.html and maybe learn something (though that is questionable).

Only in your limited, lieing, sick mind, Marshall.

[Yssup Rider]

Well at least that's shorter than his endless droning, slavering posts.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You deliberately and repeatedly – repeatedly – claimed that the cited judgments rendered by Attorney General Bates, Secretary Welles and Congressman Stevens were irrelevant because they pointedly contravened your “opinion”.

That means I deliberately and repeatedly - repeatedly - expressed my "opinion" that both McPherson/Randall and you are wrong.

It still not a lie, no matter how strong your opinion or how hard you pound the table.

[Yssup Rider]

These fuckers sure like to call any disagreement or contradiction a LIE. That implies a character flaw... In them.

[jaydogg07]

Do some research guys! This is a symbolic gesture that is often used in election years. Many states have a petition but none are actually leaving. The same petitions circulated in 2000 and 2004 when Bush was elected. If they get 25,000 (?) signatures the White House has to issue a response. Google it and let's move on.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

That means I deliberately and repeatedly - repeatedly - expressed my "opinion" that both McPherson/Randall and you are wrong.

It still not a lie, no matter how strong your opinion or how hard you pound the table.

You asked for an expert legal opinion of someone who held that the action directly contravened the Constitution: Attorney General Bates was that man (and there others).

You asked for evidence from a professional historian who held that the action violated the tenets of the Constitution, and you were given two: Randall and McPherson (and there are more).

The answer to one simple question resolves the entire issue. Did creating the state of West Virginia out of the state of Virginia violate Art IV, Sec 3 of the Constitution? The answer is an unequivocal "yes". By definition that means the action was "unconstitutional".

BTW, ExNYer, New York was slave state until 1827, and your New York City banks continued to finance the slave trade in the U.S. for another generation afterwards: so slavery and the slave trade was a corner stone in the foundation your “Big Apple”.

New York Doesn’t Care to Remember the Civil War
By SAM ROBERTS
It was anything but civil. On Jan. 7, 1861, Mayor Fernando Wood exhorted New York’s Board of Aldermen to declare the city’s independence from Albany and from Washington — a bold stroke of self-preservation that he maintained “would have the whole and united support of the Southern States.”

. . . . Mayor Wood unabashedly embraced the South initially because its cotton merchants were financed by New York banks and protected from loss by New York insurers, and it transported its harvest in New York ships.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-civil-war/

“In addition to the Bank of America, U.S. Bank. J.P. Morgan and Wachovia, research revealed four other major companies that disclosed ties to the slave trade through slavery-disclosure laws in various jurisdictions: insurers Aetna, New York Life and AIG and financial-service companies ABN AMRO (p8).

http://sfgsa.org/Modules/ShowDocumen...documentid=860

So you can take your pretentiousness -- like you've done with 'your history' -- and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine, ExNYer.