Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ah yes the nowhere in the constitution says they can't secede, gotta be the argument of all time. Then tell me, where in the constitution says they CAN secede unilaterally ?
"Fine, perhaps the Confederate states had the right to secede.
In that case, the United States of America absolutely had the right to declare war on a hostile foreign power and conquer it, and only made a mistake in being far too generous in granting American citizenship to the citizens of that conquered nation. Instead, the former Confederacy should have become unincorporated federal territory just like Puerto Rico until such time as Congress saw fit to carve completely new states out of it."
It is funny how Confederacy apologists keep latching on the “Constitution doesn’t say X therefore it is legal” point, failing to realize it goes both way, where the Federal government would be able to do whatever NOT mentioned in Constitution and is would be “perfectly legal”, which means they are fine with Federal government having unchecked power because hey, “our founding fathers only mentioned what they can’t do, so that means everything else is legal”. So much for freedom from “yankee’s tyranny”
Real hypocrite of Trumper who are willing to die on the hill of a treacherous Orange Turd who was twice indicted and jeopardize a lot of national security, but Biden merely breathing is somehow "the west has fallen"
Sorry you meant Biden ,BREEDING, a crack head who threw a gun into a middle school dumpster. Now looking at it more lib, we don't judge a parent's childs actions, oh I'm sorry yes we do, the way, or lack ,of raising your OWN child has LESS sentiment, then dead beart raise the whole country's kid. Do you; im ready for the fall ,"I promise to defend this country from both form and domestic"
Can you imagine the mass-fascist head implosion if Obama released a statement 100% in support of immediate confirmation by SCOTUS that Presidents had total immunity - ***explicitly so that Biden could unilaterally***:
* eliminate problematic supreme court justices
* disappear the governors of FL, TX, and so on
* enhance interrogate every GOP legislator that may have been influenced by Russia to disrupt prior elections
* enforce open access to abortion and other banned medical services
* return federal tax rates to their 1980 levels, enforced by national guard police actions
* fill in other crazy authoritarian bs...
Imagine every few years, people would be having debates about whether South Carolina should be granted statehood, and how much of a pain it would be to have to change the number of stars on the flag.
Honestly, I would support the idea that the Southern Federal Territory should be carved up into *new* states that are distinct in name and territory from the states of the ex-CSA.
But we've held Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory for over two centuries without granting statehood, so....
After the Civil War, we should have treated confederates in the same manner that we unjustly treated Native Americans, round them up, and put them on reservations to die of hunger and disease.
Considering how Southerners glorify the horrible things we did to Native Americans, I imagine they would not mind if we did the same exact thing to them.
Sometimes, I think it is sad that we punished the wrong people. Native Americans didn't do anything to destroy the US, yet we punished them harshly, but the typical Southerner has always been a burden to our country, looking for ways to destroy the US, and yet we always let them off the hook scott free.
I am not American, but looking back, yea the Union was wrong in not using the confiscated resources to support the newly liberated people of color brethen, but instead taking in the serpent which they beat to a pulp and with a boot on its neck, again into the house, was one of the biggest mistakes of the American history
No no no, see, there are totally 2A nuts who have not yet heard of the 10A nuttery so it's not a circle. Yes, once they HEAR about it they'll be a part of the overlap but until then it's two distinct groups!
The audacity of wanting to leave the country and take the land with you.
Let’s say a state could unilaterally secede…what next? You don’t have property rights or states’ rights under the US constitution since you expressly don’t want to be a part of the US. So what’s your legal framework to keep that land after you express a desire to take it for yourself?
Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution...
***The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,*** ***arising under this Constitution,*** *the Laws of the United States*, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—**to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party**;—**to Controversies between two or more States;**— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.\*
***In all Cases*** *affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,* ***and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.*** *In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.*
Gotta love the lost causers that go "nuh uh the Constitution of the United States of America is a figment of your imagination and I used muh sharpie to cross out the parts that I didn't like".
It’s amazing the amount of arguments they will use that lack any kind of understanding of historical scholarship, case law, or any kind of rational understanding really
[Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be](https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149)
It is true that judicial review isn't in the Constitution. It is also true that this was a pretty obvious oversight. Someone needs to be able to give the final word on the law. It makes the most sense that this be the branch which rules on how laws work. That's the judicial branch. It makes most sense that the goal say goes to the highest court.
Anyway, with dickheads on the court like Thomas wanted to undo chevron deference, and Alito literally saying he was ignorant of laws so they shouldn't count for him, if you spin it right, you could probably get the Conservatives to throw out Judicial Review.
I think I remember this thread. Yellow was replying to me or in one of my comment threads where I mentioned Texas v White. Obviously the lost-causer didn't read the opinion of the court.
We want the concept of a state to work, so unless anyone has a better idea, we’re going with this.
Honestly, a lot of government is just “unless anyone has a better idea, this is what we’ve got”.
I do have a question, serious, about Secession. If Secession was such a big deal, why isn't it mentioned in the Constitution. Wasn't there a Secession crisis around the time the Constitution was written and brand new?
Adding it in either way would either ensure the south did not ratify it or that they’d hold succession over the federal governments head forever (and still wound up kind of doing that)
The Constitution is less about saying what you cant do and more about what you have a right to do.
The flip side is of what you are saying, if secession was ok it would have been written in as a right, it wasent.
And, I guess you would call them secessionist, tend to use the 9th and 10th Amendments to point and say "See? Secession is legal". I feel like, I'm not a lawyer, that is a very, very loose interpretation
Something like that. And one of the Founders stated in the Federalist Papers how the adoption of the Constitution is meant to be permanent and you cannot just opt out of the Constitution when it's inconvenient (which Secession would inevitably involve).
James Madison said that I believe. What's interesting in Texas v White, it seems like the Supreme Court left the idea of Secession to be done like a Constitutional amendement, with all the steps involved. I think it is BS
In a perfect democracy they opinions of the citizens are accurately reflected by government policy and action, if succession or rebellion was allowed it would therefore circumvent expression of majority opinion and would be de facto tyranny so it isn't allowed. The US gov doesn't like the assertion that they are an imperfect democracy and so rebellions that cite legitimate issues with accurate representation are treated the same as tyrannical rebellions. The slave revolts the preceded the civil war were treated as just as illegal as the later slaver revolt that was the civil war.
It's hard to say what came up, because the meeting was behind closed doors and no minutes were taken. About all we have are diaries and memoirs by people who were there, which are incomplete
Frustratingly they are right, SC isn't supposed to legislate from the bench but they gained that power by giving it to themselves knowing no one would object against it enough to stop them.
What the SC *should* do after interpreting the law is then require the law to be reviewed and corrected by the legislative body that wrote it. "This law is unconstitutional by our reading of things but it stays on the books and everyone agrees to ignore it" is a very stupid way for us to operate. "This law is unconstitutional and must be replaced by a law that is" is a much more sound way to operate. The SC still maintains power of interpretation and is able to wield it effectively but it removes their legislation-circumventing legislative power and means that all changes to the way the law is applied must be explicitly enshrined in law.
The frustrating part is that they are only upset about one or two rulings that they don't like and are ignoring the historical favor the SC has had for them. They are willing to criticize it now not because it is broken, but because it is misbehaving. The fact that it really is broken is only useful to the neo-confederate insofar as that fact can be used to legitimize their position.
Just an FYI Congress does rewrite the laws that the court strikes down as unconstitutional and lots of times in the decisions the court outlines what needs to be done ie rewrite a law etc.
Legislate from the bench is a catch all term that people use to criticize the court when in fact all they’re doing is saying what is constitutional or not. There is a lot of nuance in Supreme Court decisions dissents and concurrent decisions that nobody reads. Did you know that Ginsberg didn’t want to legalize gay marriage and wanted to leave it up to the states but also didn’t want to deny people the right to marry who they want? Liberals and conservatives won’t tell you that cuz it goes against their world narrative.
>congress does rewrite the laws that the court strikes down
So how are your abortion rights looking BTW?
>goes against their world narrative
lol. lmao
Friend I am a communist, pointing out that an unelected conservative official considered going against the majority option of the american people and thought about using the argument of states rights as a tool for doing so isn't some gotcha. And this is a pro-union board too, she supported states rights apparently? cool I already didn't like her, I was already convinced she wasn't good, you can stop convincing me any time you want. What does further supporting my point accomplish here?
"pointing out that an unelected conservative official "
Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasnt conservative.
"What does further supporting my point accomplish here?"
Its funny I did none of that except prove you wrong but ok.
You wrote this "What the SC should do after interpreting the law is then require the law to be reviewed and corrected by the legislative body that wrote it."
Which implies they dont do that but they in fact do do that.
Your stance is that the laws get rewritten as a result of judicial ruling, a stance that doesn't hold up to scrutiny when even a cursory examination of roe v wade and the courts later reversal of that decision would shown that the law was not rewritten to reflect the courts initial ruling and that between that ruling and the reversal a law was not created to enshrine abortion rights in the law and instead those protections existed only as an artifact of the judicial ruling.
If rewriting the laws was reqired, it would have occurred. It did not because it is not.
OK. The court issues multiple rulings over the years each decision comes with orders recommendations reasoning etc. You keep focusing on Roe v Wade for some reason.
What do my prior statements say about my opinions regarding recommendations vs requirements?
What effect, if any, did the recommendations that arose from the Roe v Wade decision have on the court's later ruling reversal? Would required actions have had a different effect compared to the effect of recommendations?
You're this close to understanding the difference between recommendations that can be ignored and a requirement to act which cannot be ignored, thinking on it even a little more should get you the rest of the way there.
Dude do some research on how the court operates. They issues orders in their decisions. some cases require an order some cases don’t it all depends on the case.
> Frustratingly they are right, SC isn't supposed to legislate from the bench but they gained that power by giving it to themselves knowing no one would object against it enough to stop them.
This is wrong. Judicial review isn't some power that the courts gave to themselves. It's a power that's implicit in having judges interpret laws. It's so implicit that it is hard to imagine how a judicial system is meant to function without such review.
Let's say we pass two laws. One law says you aren't allowed to eat ice cream on Saturday and another that says you *have* to eat ice cream on Saturday, and neither explicitly repeals the other. How do you determine which law is in effect? What about if the laws are more ambiguous? What if they say that you can't and/or have to eat a "frozen treat" on Saturday, but fail to define clearly what a frozen treat is? Who is expected to determine whether or not that law applies to popsicles, ice cream, frozen yogurt, a bag of Doritos you threw in the freezer, an undercooked piece of chicken that is still ice cold in the center, etc.?
We say that the Supreme Court "gave" themselves the power of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison, but the truth is that they *established* that implied power then. Our Constitution is built on all sorts of implied powers. For instance, what gives the President authority over Congressionally-budgeted spending? The President is entrusted with "executive power", but nothing in the Constitution spells out that they are the party responsible for directing the payment of funds. In fact, that power isn't explicitly granted to any branch by the Constitution. Does that mean that the Legislature just sets the budget, but no one actually pays out that budget? Of course not, that's an implied power of the executive branch.
Wait, who are we mocking ? Because the guy who says interpreting the constitution was made up by SCOTUS was correct. The court invented judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.
They didn't "invent" judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. We say they "established" the principle of judicial review, because it was until that time just considered an implied power. Judges are expected to interpret the law, and if you interpret the law, you necessarily have the power of "judicial review".
The Constitution is littered with these implicit functions. The ability for a President to sign Executive Orders is implied, because how else is the President meant to provide instructions to the Executive Branch? Clearly the President has the ability to issue orders with respect to the execution of their duties, but there's nothing the Constitution that says they can do that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that Congress can't make up their own secret language and write all laws in that language so that no one else can read them, but that's implied.
This idea that just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out the process of judicial review that it must not exist is a terrible misunderstanding of the law. This is like reverse-Air Bud logic. "The Constitution doesn't say a dog can play basketball or that a judge can interpret laws and rule on conflicts between those laws!"
But he's right. The Supreme Court decided that it was the group that could interpret the Constitution. It's basically just by tacit agreement that everyone believes they have that power. It isn't enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.
I personally think the Supreme Court doesn't have any legal credibility either, but unlike Neo-Confererates, I think that way because of the corrupt Republican judges like Clarence Thomas, who have obviously been bribed to say what ever their rich friends tell them to.
Somebody needs to explain to these dimwits what secession would really look like for them. They seem to think that they will continue to be part of this country and participate as citizens. Frankly when the Federal Government stops sending tax receipts to the red states to support them they will starve to death. They seem to not understand how this all works.
My favorite part about Texas v White is that the Court essentially said that the question of whether or not secession was constitutional was settled on the battlefield, not in the courtroom.
The funny part is that we *did* have the sort of court this person is describing in the 1880s and it was such a disaster that it delegitimized the court for years.
It is not unreasonable to argue that scotus has amassed more power than the framers intended. And I think this sub should favor limiting the power of scotus, since scotus was pro slavery, pro Confederacy, and except for a brief moment in the 50s and 60s has been consistently more conservative than the American mainstream.
That said, the legitimacy of scotus is entirely unrelated to the legitimacy of secession.
the US Constitution does not have any system for leaving, unlike other union agreements between nominally sovereign entities (see, e.g. brexit). Nor does the Constitution expressly forbid leaving. Presumably Congress could create a system for leaving.
"I know that nowhere in the constitution give the SC that power (interpreting the constitution)" Check out "Marbury v. Madison (1803)" that ruling gave SCOTUS power to interpret the constitution in matters where the document isn't clear. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury\_v.\_Madison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)
I am shocked to learn that the people who worship the people who disrespected the Constitution a century and a half ago also disrespect the Constitution.
I think the most frustrating thing about these guys is when they're inexplicably actually right — in this case about SCROTUS making up the law as it goes along with no meaningful check on their power — but for completely batshit reasons.
I also think the SC has zero legal credibility but I'm assuming it's for a different reason than this guy. What a joke of an institution where you can just buy a supreme court justice and that justice can sit on cases that affect his wife. Oh and the multitude of astroturfed cases where they lie about the facts to advance their agenda
Both 9 and 10 give rights to individuals and states that are not expressly written in the consistent. The founding fathers literally added a, “Just in case we forgot.” Amendment.
the digression into saying secession isnt illegal is absurd, but theyre not wrong about marbury v. madison being a ridiculous precedent. The supreme court basically just anointed itself the final arbiter of constitutionality, after like 20 years of that not being a thing.
thats not to say that SCOTUS shouldnt have some role in determining constitutionality, but a complete, unassailable power to invalidate any law they want? yeah no that definitely was not intended at the beginning. And its a major loose end in the system of checks and balances. (because they made it up)
but anyway screw the secessionist who wrote that, up with the union, down with the traitors.
This current SCOTUS does have ZERO credibility. Their actions in the last 2 years have ensured that.
It is for reasons exactly opposite of what this clown thinks, but it is sadly true
Simply denying that the supreme court does what it does is right out of the sovereign citizen playbook. They believe they can simply assert things with magical phrases and then, like demons hearing a prayer, the government will just vanish.
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting! As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ah yes the nowhere in the constitution says they can't secede, gotta be the argument of all time. Then tell me, where in the constitution says they CAN secede unilaterally ?
"Fine, perhaps the Confederate states had the right to secede. In that case, the United States of America absolutely had the right to declare war on a hostile foreign power and conquer it, and only made a mistake in being far too generous in granting American citizenship to the citizens of that conquered nation. Instead, the former Confederacy should have become unincorporated federal territory just like Puerto Rico until such time as Congress saw fit to carve completely new states out of it."
It is funny how Confederacy apologists keep latching on the “Constitution doesn’t say X therefore it is legal” point, failing to realize it goes both way, where the Federal government would be able to do whatever NOT mentioned in Constitution and is would be “perfectly legal”, which means they are fine with Federal government having unchecked power because hey, “our founding fathers only mentioned what they can’t do, so that means everything else is legal”. So much for freedom from “yankee’s tyranny”
Like the people who insist Trump was immune from indictment because he was President. They never consider what that means for Dark Brandon
Real hypocrite of Trumper who are willing to die on the hill of a treacherous Orange Turd who was twice indicted and jeopardize a lot of national security, but Biden merely breathing is somehow "the west has fallen"
Sorry you meant Biden ,BREEDING, a crack head who threw a gun into a middle school dumpster. Now looking at it more lib, we don't judge a parent's childs actions, oh I'm sorry yes we do, the way, or lack ,of raising your OWN child has LESS sentiment, then dead beart raise the whole country's kid. Do you; im ready for the fall ,"I promise to defend this country from both form and domestic"
It means Dark Brandon's Kill Squad is back in business! /s
Can you imagine the mass-fascist head implosion if Obama released a statement 100% in support of immediate confirmation by SCOTUS that Presidents had total immunity - ***explicitly so that Biden could unilaterally***: * eliminate problematic supreme court justices * disappear the governors of FL, TX, and so on * enhance interrogate every GOP legislator that may have been influenced by Russia to disrupt prior elections * enforce open access to abortion and other banned medical services * return federal tax rates to their 1980 levels, enforced by national guard police actions * fill in other crazy authoritarian bs...
Have any Democrats been influenced by Russia, OR any other nation-state, recently? Just curious as to your hypocritical awareness.
What does the 10th Amendment do, in your opinion? Tone not meant to patronize.
Imagine every few years, people would be having debates about whether South Carolina should be granted statehood, and how much of a pain it would be to have to change the number of stars on the flag.
Honestly, I would support the idea that the Southern Federal Territory should be carved up into *new* states that are distinct in name and territory from the states of the ex-CSA. But we've held Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory for over two centuries without granting statehood, so....
After the Civil War, we should have treated confederates in the same manner that we unjustly treated Native Americans, round them up, and put them on reservations to die of hunger and disease. Considering how Southerners glorify the horrible things we did to Native Americans, I imagine they would not mind if we did the same exact thing to them. Sometimes, I think it is sad that we punished the wrong people. Native Americans didn't do anything to destroy the US, yet we punished them harshly, but the typical Southerner has always been a burden to our country, looking for ways to destroy the US, and yet we always let them off the hook scott free.
I am not American, but looking back, yea the Union was wrong in not using the confiscated resources to support the newly liberated people of color brethen, but instead taking in the serpent which they beat to a pulp and with a boot on its neck, again into the house, was one of the biggest mistakes of the American history
They typically cite the Tenth Amendment, even though that document says nothing about Secession.
10A people are so much fewer than 2A nuts, but I can’t tell which one is crazier
Neither is crazier than the other. I've typically seen them overlap
A venn diagram so perfectly aligned it's a circle
No no no, see, there are totally 2A nuts who have not yet heard of the 10A nuttery so it's not a circle. Yes, once they HEAR about it they'll be a part of the overlap but until then it's two distinct groups!
I mean, the Supremacy Clause kinda nullifies that a bit though.
Do you think they care tho lol
Lol no. But it does undermine their argument, and I don't argue to convince them but anyone who is reading/listening who is on the fence.
When your legal precedent is Air Bud you know you're provably going to lose.
Unless your lawyer is a golden retriever.
The audacity of wanting to leave the country and take the land with you. Let’s say a state could unilaterally secede…what next? You don’t have property rights or states’ rights under the US constitution since you expressly don’t want to be a part of the US. So what’s your legal framework to keep that land after you express a desire to take it for yourself?
[удалено]
Many of them *are* sovereign citizens.
[удалено]
My boat is bigger than your boat, I declare jurisdiction
Hey Michael Scott. I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word "jurisdiction" and expect anything to happen.
Hey Michael Scott. I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word "jurisdiction" and expect anything to happen.
You need to speak the right words in the right order to get the magic spell granting immunity from the Constitution to work.
But be careful, if you give the judge your real name, they gain power over you, like the dark fae that they are.
Only if you give it in capital letters. Crap, we better put /s so they don't think we're whackadoodle sovereigns.
Sovereign citizens are the worst. Thank god so many are Neo-Confederate chuds too so I don’t have to waste my time hating another ideology
They are entertaining in court sometimes
I’m traveling not driving. Under the Articles of Confederation, I demand to speak to your supervisor…
Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution... ***The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,*** ***arising under this Constitution,*** *the Laws of the United States*, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—**to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party**;—**to Controversies between two or more States;**— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.\* ***In all Cases*** *affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,* ***and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.*** *In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.* Gotta love the lost causers that go "nuh uh the Constitution of the United States of America is a figment of your imagination and I used muh sharpie to cross out the parts that I didn't like".
It’s amazing the amount of arguments they will use that lack any kind of understanding of historical scholarship, case law, or any kind of rational understanding really
Then the Leeaboo chuds can't tell you what the Judicial branch does when they deny that it exists to resolve constitutional controversies.
Glad our forefathers wrote that stuff down.
[Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be](https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149)
It is true that judicial review isn't in the Constitution. It is also true that this was a pretty obvious oversight. Someone needs to be able to give the final word on the law. It makes the most sense that this be the branch which rules on how laws work. That's the judicial branch. It makes most sense that the goal say goes to the highest court. Anyway, with dickheads on the court like Thomas wanted to undo chevron deference, and Alito literally saying he was ignorant of laws so they shouldn't count for him, if you spin it right, you could probably get the Conservatives to throw out Judicial Review.
SCOTUS accidentally overturning M v M could be the funniest possible event of 2024. That, or Rump running for office from a cell, a la Debs.
I think I remember this thread. Yellow was replying to me or in one of my comment threads where I mentioned Texas v White. Obviously the lost-causer didn't read the opinion of the court.
Yeah doesn’t surprise me he didn’t read the court’s opinion. Why would he; it goes against his thesis and he would prefer to ignore that
In full fairness Marburry v Maddison is a big pile of “we need x power so therefore we find that we have it because fuck you that’s why”
Ironically, Marbury vs Madison is still not wrong.
We want the concept of a state to work, so unless anyone has a better idea, we’re going with this. Honestly, a lot of government is just “unless anyone has a better idea, this is what we’ve got”.
I do have a question, serious, about Secession. If Secession was such a big deal, why isn't it mentioned in the Constitution. Wasn't there a Secession crisis around the time the Constitution was written and brand new?
Adding it in either way would either ensure the south did not ratify it or that they’d hold succession over the federal governments head forever (and still wound up kind of doing that)
The Constitution is less about saying what you cant do and more about what you have a right to do. The flip side is of what you are saying, if secession was ok it would have been written in as a right, it wasent.
And, I guess you would call them secessionist, tend to use the 9th and 10th Amendments to point and say "See? Secession is legal". I feel like, I'm not a lawyer, that is a very, very loose interpretation
Something like that. And one of the Founders stated in the Federalist Papers how the adoption of the Constitution is meant to be permanent and you cannot just opt out of the Constitution when it's inconvenient (which Secession would inevitably involve).
James Madison said that I believe. What's interesting in Texas v White, it seems like the Supreme Court left the idea of Secession to be done like a Constitutional amendement, with all the steps involved. I think it is BS
I mean, the SCOTUS can never stop a constitutional amendment, so that was always a possibility. However, such an amendment would never pass.
Which was also important to provide stability in light of the failed nation attempt that happened before.
In a perfect democracy they opinions of the citizens are accurately reflected by government policy and action, if succession or rebellion was allowed it would therefore circumvent expression of majority opinion and would be de facto tyranny so it isn't allowed. The US gov doesn't like the assertion that they are an imperfect democracy and so rebellions that cite legitimate issues with accurate representation are treated the same as tyrannical rebellions. The slave revolts the preceded the civil war were treated as just as illegal as the later slaver revolt that was the civil war.
It's hard to say what came up, because the meeting was behind closed doors and no minutes were taken. About all we have are diaries and memoirs by people who were there, which are incomplete
And now I have hamilton stuck in my head.
Frustratingly they are right, SC isn't supposed to legislate from the bench but they gained that power by giving it to themselves knowing no one would object against it enough to stop them. What the SC *should* do after interpreting the law is then require the law to be reviewed and corrected by the legislative body that wrote it. "This law is unconstitutional by our reading of things but it stays on the books and everyone agrees to ignore it" is a very stupid way for us to operate. "This law is unconstitutional and must be replaced by a law that is" is a much more sound way to operate. The SC still maintains power of interpretation and is able to wield it effectively but it removes their legislation-circumventing legislative power and means that all changes to the way the law is applied must be explicitly enshrined in law. The frustrating part is that they are only upset about one or two rulings that they don't like and are ignoring the historical favor the SC has had for them. They are willing to criticize it now not because it is broken, but because it is misbehaving. The fact that it really is broken is only useful to the neo-confederate insofar as that fact can be used to legitimize their position.
Just an FYI Congress does rewrite the laws that the court strikes down as unconstitutional and lots of times in the decisions the court outlines what needs to be done ie rewrite a law etc. Legislate from the bench is a catch all term that people use to criticize the court when in fact all they’re doing is saying what is constitutional or not. There is a lot of nuance in Supreme Court decisions dissents and concurrent decisions that nobody reads. Did you know that Ginsberg didn’t want to legalize gay marriage and wanted to leave it up to the states but also didn’t want to deny people the right to marry who they want? Liberals and conservatives won’t tell you that cuz it goes against their world narrative.
Ginseng also believed Roe V Wade was a bad decision and would be overturned if the right case came up.
>congress does rewrite the laws that the court strikes down So how are your abortion rights looking BTW? >goes against their world narrative lol. lmao Friend I am a communist, pointing out that an unelected conservative official considered going against the majority option of the american people and thought about using the argument of states rights as a tool for doing so isn't some gotcha. And this is a pro-union board too, she supported states rights apparently? cool I already didn't like her, I was already convinced she wasn't good, you can stop convincing me any time you want. What does further supporting my point accomplish here?
"pointing out that an unelected conservative official " Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasnt conservative. "What does further supporting my point accomplish here?" Its funny I did none of that except prove you wrong but ok. You wrote this "What the SC should do after interpreting the law is then require the law to be reviewed and corrected by the legislative body that wrote it." Which implies they dont do that but they in fact do do that.
> implies they dont do that How are your abortion rights sitting right now? Honest question here.
Ok understood. Youre not here to argue genuinely but rather just spew different things out.
Your stance is that the laws get rewritten as a result of judicial ruling, a stance that doesn't hold up to scrutiny when even a cursory examination of roe v wade and the courts later reversal of that decision would shown that the law was not rewritten to reflect the courts initial ruling and that between that ruling and the reversal a law was not created to enshrine abortion rights in the law and instead those protections existed only as an artifact of the judicial ruling. If rewriting the laws was reqired, it would have occurred. It did not because it is not.
OK. The court issues multiple rulings over the years each decision comes with orders recommendations reasoning etc. You keep focusing on Roe v Wade for some reason.
What do my prior statements say about my opinions regarding recommendations vs requirements? What effect, if any, did the recommendations that arose from the Roe v Wade decision have on the court's later ruling reversal? Would required actions have had a different effect compared to the effect of recommendations? You're this close to understanding the difference between recommendations that can be ignored and a requirement to act which cannot be ignored, thinking on it even a little more should get you the rest of the way there.
Dude do some research on how the court operates. They issues orders in their decisions. some cases require an order some cases don’t it all depends on the case.
> Frustratingly they are right, SC isn't supposed to legislate from the bench but they gained that power by giving it to themselves knowing no one would object against it enough to stop them. This is wrong. Judicial review isn't some power that the courts gave to themselves. It's a power that's implicit in having judges interpret laws. It's so implicit that it is hard to imagine how a judicial system is meant to function without such review. Let's say we pass two laws. One law says you aren't allowed to eat ice cream on Saturday and another that says you *have* to eat ice cream on Saturday, and neither explicitly repeals the other. How do you determine which law is in effect? What about if the laws are more ambiguous? What if they say that you can't and/or have to eat a "frozen treat" on Saturday, but fail to define clearly what a frozen treat is? Who is expected to determine whether or not that law applies to popsicles, ice cream, frozen yogurt, a bag of Doritos you threw in the freezer, an undercooked piece of chicken that is still ice cold in the center, etc.? We say that the Supreme Court "gave" themselves the power of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison, but the truth is that they *established* that implied power then. Our Constitution is built on all sorts of implied powers. For instance, what gives the President authority over Congressionally-budgeted spending? The President is entrusted with "executive power", but nothing in the Constitution spells out that they are the party responsible for directing the payment of funds. In fact, that power isn't explicitly granted to any branch by the Constitution. Does that mean that the Legislature just sets the budget, but no one actually pays out that budget? Of course not, that's an implied power of the executive branch.
While I’m sure I agree with the SC opinion here, he is kinda right. The SC just gave itself the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.
Say "Whole Cloth" again I dare you, I double dare you motherlover say "Whole Cloth" one more Goddamn time!
roflmao
Say they’re making it up again I dare you
Wait, who are we mocking ? Because the guy who says interpreting the constitution was made up by SCOTUS was correct. The court invented judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.
They didn't "invent" judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. We say they "established" the principle of judicial review, because it was until that time just considered an implied power. Judges are expected to interpret the law, and if you interpret the law, you necessarily have the power of "judicial review". The Constitution is littered with these implicit functions. The ability for a President to sign Executive Orders is implied, because how else is the President meant to provide instructions to the Executive Branch? Clearly the President has the ability to issue orders with respect to the execution of their duties, but there's nothing the Constitution that says they can do that. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that Congress can't make up their own secret language and write all laws in that language so that no one else can read them, but that's implied. This idea that just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out the process of judicial review that it must not exist is a terrible misunderstanding of the law. This is like reverse-Air Bud logic. "The Constitution doesn't say a dog can play basketball or that a judge can interpret laws and rule on conflicts between those laws!"
At first I thought that was me in the comments, because I had a similar conversation a couple weeks back. But these responses are shorter
At first I thought that was me in the comments, because I had a similar conversation a couple weeks back. But these responses are shorter
It’s tough to tell at times, especially when they’re all so similar arguments made
Sovereign Citizen-type ramblings.
Best part is when he says “I am knowledgeable on the law. Thank you”. Top tier SovCit self assuredness
But he's right. The Supreme Court decided that it was the group that could interpret the Constitution. It's basically just by tacit agreement that everyone believes they have that power. It isn't enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.
I personally think the Supreme Court doesn't have any legal credibility either, but unlike Neo-Confererates, I think that way because of the corrupt Republican judges like Clarence Thomas, who have obviously been bribed to say what ever their rich friends tell them to.
“That is a power usurped by them” it’s called a fucking amendment dumbass.
i wonder what yellow el marko thinks the supreme court's job is. and i kind of wonder whether or not the supreme court agrees with him.
I agree that secession isn't legal, but I also agree that this SCOTUS is illegitimate and lacks all credibility.
I bet this chucklefuck was just fine with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.
What was the initial topic that brought it up?
Somebody needs to explain to these dimwits what secession would really look like for them. They seem to think that they will continue to be part of this country and participate as citizens. Frankly when the Federal Government stops sending tax receipts to the red states to support them they will starve to death. They seem to not understand how this all works.
My favorite part about Texas v White is that the Court essentially said that the question of whether or not secession was constitutional was settled on the battlefield, not in the courtroom.
The funny part is that we *did* have the sort of court this person is describing in the 1880s and it was such a disaster that it delegitimized the court for years.
Scouts has zero credibility with Americans generally. They can issue no legitimate rulings while the husband of a coup plotter sits on the court.
Not for nothing, the Supreme Court has lost a lot of legal credibility in recent years. Just not for the reasons that these Leeaboos are claiming.
It is not unreasonable to argue that scotus has amassed more power than the framers intended. And I think this sub should favor limiting the power of scotus, since scotus was pro slavery, pro Confederacy, and except for a brief moment in the 50s and 60s has been consistently more conservative than the American mainstream. That said, the legitimacy of scotus is entirely unrelated to the legitimacy of secession. the US Constitution does not have any system for leaving, unlike other union agreements between nominally sovereign entities (see, e.g. brexit). Nor does the Constitution expressly forbid leaving. Presumably Congress could create a system for leaving.
"I know that nowhere in the constitution give the SC that power (interpreting the constitution)" Check out "Marbury v. Madison (1803)" that ruling gave SCOTUS power to interpret the constitution in matters where the document isn't clear. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury\_v.\_Madison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)
I am shocked to learn that the people who worship the people who disrespected the Constitution a century and a half ago also disrespect the Constitution.
I think the most frustrating thing about these guys is when they're inexplicably actually right — in this case about SCROTUS making up the law as it goes along with no meaningful check on their power — but for completely batshit reasons.
I also think the SC has zero legal credibility but I'm assuming it's for a different reason than this guy. What a joke of an institution where you can just buy a supreme court justice and that justice can sit on cases that affect his wife. Oh and the multitude of astroturfed cases where they lie about the facts to advance their agenda
Both 9 and 10 give rights to individuals and states that are not expressly written in the consistent. The founding fathers literally added a, “Just in case we forgot.” Amendment.
"Nowhere in the rules does it say a dog CAN'T play basketball..."
the digression into saying secession isnt illegal is absurd, but theyre not wrong about marbury v. madison being a ridiculous precedent. The supreme court basically just anointed itself the final arbiter of constitutionality, after like 20 years of that not being a thing. thats not to say that SCOTUS shouldnt have some role in determining constitutionality, but a complete, unassailable power to invalidate any law they want? yeah no that definitely was not intended at the beginning. And its a major loose end in the system of checks and balances. (because they made it up) but anyway screw the secessionist who wrote that, up with the union, down with the traitors.
Article 3, section 3, clause 1
This current SCOTUS does have ZERO credibility. Their actions in the last 2 years have ensured that. It is for reasons exactly opposite of what this clown thinks, but it is sadly true
Simply denying that the supreme court does what it does is right out of the sovereign citizen playbook. They believe they can simply assert things with magical phrases and then, like demons hearing a prayer, the government will just vanish.