paidagogos
Active Member
You know not and you know not that you know not.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Right of secession
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Incorrect. The court issues a ruling. The ruling is often (but not always) accompanied by an opinion.
A jury finding of "not guilty" does not constitutionalize a law. It only find whether or not the defendant violated the law.
S/He wont, because it's incorrect.
Religion has no protections whatsoever in the Constitution. The only protections are an individual's right to be free from government's respecting of the establishment of religion, as well as the right of the individual to excercise his/her religion freely. Those and all constitutionally guaranteed rights end where they violate another person's constitutionally guaranteed rights. Also, those rights extend to any and all religious expression by individuals, not just Christian expression.
Washington was neither a judge nor was he an author of the Constitution. I respect his opioons, but they are not matters of law. However, I again note that Washington was speaking of all religious expression, not Christian expression.
Is really your claim that judges have no power to hear and review cases judicial review? Apparantly, you think SCOTUS is a nonlegal advisory board with no legal powers. I think you need to read the whole constition again. Look up the Judiciary Act of 1789 while you're at it.
Judicial power confers on courts the power to decide a case, to render a judgment conclusively resolving a case. Judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, and Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts.
That's amusing, since it comes from the same person who said "loud, brassy, know-it-all, irritating, busybodies, smug, arrogant, mouthy, crude, rude, pushy, etc."
Missouri vs Holland, 1920.
The US signs a "TREATY" with England on some "Birds" mirgrating through the "States".
Missouri claimed "state jurisdiction" over the birds while in Missouri.
The "COURT" ruled that "TREATIES" the US sign with foreign nations are "superior" to state, even Constitutional laws.
The "president has "fast track authority" to sign treaties with foreign nations without Congress approval.
They do have a short time to vote on the treaty, but if no vote is taken, it's "Automatically approved".
The "Stroke of a pen" can "eliminate" the Constitution.
The US signs a "TREATY" with England on some "Birds" mirgrating through the "States".
Missouri claimed "state jurisdiction" over the birds while in Missouri.
The "COURT" ruled that "TREATIES" the US sign with foreign nations are "superior" to state, even Constitutional laws.
The "president has "fast track authority" to sign treaties with foreign nations without Congress approval.
They do have a short time to vote on the treaty, but if no vote is taken, it's "Automatically approved".
The "Stroke of a pen" can "eliminate" the Constitution.
Nothing unconstitutional about it.
Missouri vs. Holland was a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill was that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. The treaty you're referring to was entered into in 1916, and was not a part of this suit. The only question in this suit was the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which was a Constitionally permitted Act of Congress. A motion to dismiss was sustained by the district court on the ground that the act of Congress is constitutional. The State appealed.
The Constitution's Article II, section 2, delegates the power to make treaties, and Article VI states that treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are valid. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act qualified as a law of the United States made in pursuance to a treaty. SCOTUS therefore upheld the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 on that ground.
Alexander,
I'm wondering if I might be willing to support a constitutional amendment that would allow a state to secede?
If that means that states like South Carolina, and Mississippi and Alabama could go their own way - and nut cases from other states could move to them - then I might be willing to let them go their own way.
That would free up the rest of the United States to focus on fulfilling the dreams and aspirations of our founders and the millions of others who have, over the centuries, yearned and worked and fought for a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Then we wouldn't have to worry about a crackpot state Supreme Court justice who was deposed from office for defying the law running all over the country towing around a granite monument and yammering on about his demented views of states rights.
Alexander
I'm wondering if I might be willing to support a constitutional amendment that would allow a state to secede?
If that means that states like South Carolina, and Mississippi and Alabama could go their own way - and nut cases from other states could move to them - then I might be willing to let them go their own way.
That would free up the rest of the United States to focus on fulfilling the dreams and aspirations of our founders and the millions of others who have, over the centuries, yearned and worked and fought for a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Then we wouldn't have to worry about a crackpot state Supreme Court justice who was deposed from office for defying the law running all over the country towing around a granite monument and yammering on about his demented views of states rights.
Alexander
Magnetic Poles
New Member
AMEN!
The Federalist wanted 'We the People' while Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson wanted 'We the States'. People 'just' carried the day. It is nonetheless a pact between the states. And if a State wanted to secede then people of that state took a vote. At least in the CSA pullout.So the people did want out so that is a mute point.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
A "mute" point? Could it not speak?
I think you mean a MOOT point.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/mute.html
It was neither right nor wrong. Had the US lost the revolutionary war after declaring independence in 1776, then we'd be a british colony today. If, somewhere over the last 200 years, we'd have been granted our independence from the UK, we'd be a vastly different country than we are today.
And I don't think anyone here has said that the CSA secession was a matter of eing right or wrong. The only tpoic of discussion was whether it was permitted in the constitution.
hillclimber
New Member
And I've been under marital law since 1966.
shanniereb
New Member
My two bits, but anyways here goes. It is not mostly wackos who believe in the right of secession. It is mostly conservative Christians like myself. I do believe in the right to secession due to the Revolution war and the Declaration of Independence. When a government becomes abusive of certain rights( i.e. religion, human rights, etc...) then it is the God given right of a people to pull out of that government and govern themselves. That is my opinion. The Revolution would have not been sucessful if they had not believed this themselves. Thanks, Shannon
KINGSDAUGHTER
New Member
How do you propose to control the chaos that ensues?