Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Slavery was an issue of the Civil War. Every other point that is made ties back to slavery.

---

The Constitution, the common law, the rights of States....these don't tie back to slavery

And they are still issues/debates/ideas to this very day

"This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force." -Oliver Ellsworth

"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (A. Johnson: Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447)

[Madison in Federalist 39 addressed "the conformity of the plan to republican principles." In considering "the foundation on which [the new government] is to be established" Madison said: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."]

---

Quotes prove nothing.

I could give you a 1000 quotes proving the other side but you won't listen to them because they prove you wrong.

Are sovereign citizens under US law?

No one alive today approved the Constitution. Is it still valid?

Could you imagine Trump amd Epstein as sailors fighting for our country while whining the opposition is too mean and there isn't any women on board to hide behind

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Slavery was an issue of the Civil War. Every other point that is made ties back to slavery.

---

The Constitution, the common law, the rights of States....these don't tie back to slavery

And they are still issues/debates/ideas to this very day

"This Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force." -Oliver Ellsworth

"The citizens of each state are the ultimate sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is supposed to be a servant of the people, not their master." ~ Lloyd Paul Stryker, (A. Johnson: Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447)

[Madison in Federalist 39 addressed "the conformity of the plan to republican principles." In considering "the foundation on which [the new government] is to be established" Madison said: "That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."]

---

Quotes prove nothing.

I could give you a 1000 quotes proving the other side but you won't listen to them because they prove you wrong.

---

I am happy to read any quotes....and have certainly heard other arguments for the other concept.

Plenty of arguments against secession....if you can't quote them then I can for you.

"The war of 1861 was fought, not to determine the status of the negro, but to establish the permanence of the Union. From the beginning of the Republic to the end of the war, a long line of distinguished statesmen (and they were not confined to the south) believed-honestly believed-that when any state as judged for herself that she had sufficient cause to withdraw from the Union, she might do so in peace, and in harmony with the constitution. On the other hand, an equally long line of renowned leaders believed-honestly believed that there could be no peaceful disintegration of the Republic. It was inevitable from the first that, some time, the issue thus presented must be settled. In the very nature of things, there was but one arbiter for such a question. The battlefield was the only court that could render judgment upon an issue so vital and so fundamental." -Gov. Cummins (11/15/1906), Governor of Iowa

"Had the Southern Senators and Representatives simply remained in their places, not one of President Lincoln's appointments need have been confirmed and not a bill embodying any part of the Republican program need have passed either House of Congress."-Prof. Channing (Harvard)


"The South contend for the right of revolution. We admit the right, but while we admit it, we invoke the sole umpire which may be invoked on such occasions the umpire of the sword, the umpire of battle...
the difference between these two words [Confederate Army/Federal Army], in their common acceptation, is the cause for which these two armies are fighting. It is secession against federation; federation against secession."-Col. Cochrane, 11/13/1861

"He [President Lincoln] believed that the paramount idea of the constitution was the preservation in perpetuity of the Federal government which had been created by it. In this idea he found the mandate for his action. If any local institution should threaten the existence of the Union, it must be swept away." -Ellis Paxson Oberholzer

"If they design to protect themselves against negroes and abolitionists I will help; if they propose to leave the Union on account of a supposed fact that the northern people are all abolitionists like Giddings and Brown then I will stand by Ohio & the Northwest."- Gen. Sherman, 10/29/1859

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

So by the same standard a person can do it.

Especially since you are arguing the government gets its power from the people.

You can't have it work both ways. You can't have a state randomly decide the federal laws don't apply to them and then argue a person can't do it.

It is the same as what currently happens with states trying to pass laws that violate federal laws.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

---

I never said that....

We are talking about the right of a State to leave. (vs a common person claiming "sovereign citizen status").

And of course a State would need to consult their people and citizens on that course of action.

Virginia in 1861 represents that process....

[Initial Rejection (April 4, 1861): The Virginia convention first voted 90 to 45 against secession, as most delegates initially favored remaining in the Union

The Turning Point (Mid-April 1861): After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the political situation changed completely.

Secession Voted (April 17, 1861): Delegates reversed course and voted to adopt the Ordinance of Secession

Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum, though western counties largely voted against it]

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

---

I never said that....

We are talking about the right of a State to leave. (vs a common person claiming "sovereign citizen status").

And of course a State would need to consult their people and citizens on that course of action.

Virginia in 1861 represents that process....

[Initial Rejection (April 4, 1861): The Virginia convention first voted 90 to 45 against secession, as most delegates initially favored remaining in the Union

The Turning Point (Mid-April 1861): After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the political situation changed completely.

Secession Voted (April 17, 1861): Delegates reversed course and voted to adopt the Ordinance of Secession

Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum, though western counties largely voted against it]

---

Yes you have.

Delegates. Not the people.

You keep missing half of what I say, ignore the rest and only argue specific points.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

---

I never said that....

We are talking about the right of a State to leave. (vs a common person claiming "sovereign citizen status").

And of course a State would need to consult their people and citizens on that course of action.

Virginia in 1861 represents that process....

[Initial Rejection (April 4, 1861): The Virginia convention first voted 90 to 45 against secession, as most delegates initially favored remaining in the Union

The Turning Point (Mid-April 1861): After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the political situation changed completely.

Secession Voted (April 17, 1861): Delegates reversed course and voted to adopt the Ordinance of Secession

Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum, though western counties largely voted against it]

---

Yes you have.

Delegates. Not the people.

You keep missing half of what I say, ignore the rest and only argue specific points.

---

The people did vote..... [Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum...]

I assume you are not reading the full replies. In fact you might be the one who is ignoring the full text of these discussions...

Absolutely a public referendum vote or special convention voted on by the citizens would be need for such a serious course of action.

[Tennessee held a popular referendum that successfully approved secession after initially voting against a convention. Texas and Virginia held conventions that voted for secession and then submitted those ordinances to the voters for confirmation.
Kentucky and Missouri did not officially secede, though rump factions/shadow governments attempted irregular or unauthorized secession votes later on.
Maryland and Delaware rejected secession entirely]

[Texas held its vote (February 23, 1861): 46,153 to 14,747 in favor.]

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

You can't have it work both ways. You can't have a state randomly decide the federal laws don't apply to them and then argue a person can't do it.

---

Well the State is not/can not "randomly decide federal laws don't apply"

That would be "Nullification" vs a State voting to leave a political union...withdraw its membership and assert its full independence.

As long as a State is within the Union it must follow all parts of the compact.

Texas did not nullify Mexican Federal law...its voted to leave the United Mexican States and become independent.

And in truth... no State joined the American Union with the idea that it could not leave if it decided through deliberation with its citizens to leave.

PS

A single person is apart of the Commonwealth and the existing political community of a State....The State has long established soverignity...a individual person does not.

That is long established English and American law.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

---

I never said that....

We are talking about the right of a State to leave. (vs a common person claiming "sovereign citizen status").

And of course a State would need to consult their people and citizens on that course of action.

Virginia in 1861 represents that process....

[Initial Rejection (April 4, 1861): The Virginia convention first voted 90 to 45 against secession, as most delegates initially favored remaining in the Union

The Turning Point (Mid-April 1861): After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the political situation changed completely.

Secession Voted (April 17, 1861): Delegates reversed course and voted to adopt the Ordinance of Secession

Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum, though western counties largely voted against it]

---

Yes you have.

Delegates. Not the people.

You keep missing half of what I say, ignore the rest and only argue specific points.

---

The people did vote..... [Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum...]

I assume you are not reading the full replies. In fact you might be the one who is ignoring the full text of these discussions...

Absolutely a public referendum vote or special convention voted on by the citizens would be need for such a serious course of action.

[Tennessee held a popular referendum that successfully approved secession after initially voting against a convention. Texas and Virginia held conventions that voted for secession and then submitted those ordinances to the voters for confirmation.
Kentucky and Missouri did not officially secede, though rump factions/shadow governments attempted irregular or unauthorized secession votes later on.
Maryland and Delaware rejected secession entirely]

[Texas held its vote (February 23, 1861): 46,153 to 14,747 in favor.]

---

Excellent, detailed information .

Virginia was key. As without Virginia the confederacy would have been still born.

And as you pointed out; Virginia voted for secession only after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the south. One of Lincoln's many overlooked blunders.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

---

I never said that....

We are talking about the right of a State to leave. (vs a common person claiming "sovereign citizen status").

And of course a State would need to consult their people and citizens on that course of action.

Virginia in 1861 represents that process....

[Initial Rejection (April 4, 1861): The Virginia convention first voted 90 to 45 against secession, as most delegates initially favored remaining in the Union

The Turning Point (Mid-April 1861): After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the political situation changed completely.

Secession Voted (April 17, 1861): Delegates reversed course and voted to adopt the Ordinance of Secession

Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum, though western counties largely voted against it]

---

Yes you have.

Delegates. Not the people.

You keep missing half of what I say, ignore the rest and only argue specific points.

---

The people did vote..... [Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum...]

I assume you are not reading the full replies. In fact you might be the one who is ignoring the full text of these discussions...

Absolutely a public referendum vote or special convention voted on by the citizens would be need for such a serious course of action.

[Tennessee held a popular referendum that successfully approved secession after initially voting against a convention. Texas and Virginia held conventions that voted for secession and then submitted those ordinances to the voters for confirmation.
Kentucky and Missouri did not officially secede, though rump factions/shadow governments attempted irregular or unauthorized secession votes later on.
Maryland and Delaware rejected secession entirely]

[Texas held its vote (February 23, 1861): 46,153 to 14,747 in favor.]

---

Delegates are NOT the people.

Conventions are NOT the people. Stop changing your argument.

Stop trying to make racist slave owners look better. They owned other people. There is NO defending that.

Period.

You keep saying "it is documented law" but fail to connect the dots..... sovereign citizens say they never agreed to it and it doesn't apply to them. The south said "those rules don't apply to us, we are leaving."

Yet you claim the second is legal.

You first say delegates. Then when I point out the people you focus on two states when there were 11.

You have moved the goalposts so much trying to defend this that they are not even on the same field anymore.

And I refuse to waste any more time with someone trying to defend RACISTS while ignoring that he is arguing for sovereign citizens.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Same for the north "invading" the south. A country cannot invade itself. Otherwise the US is still currently "invading" itself with military bases.

---

Yea, of course then that argument can be made for the Texas war of independence.

Mexico cannot invade Texas....since "a country cannot invade itself"

Or Britain cannot invade the 13 colonies since "a country can not invade itself"

In all 3 cases the people who actual lived in those places sure felt invaded......

"With what pretense of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

---

Sorry but facts override feelings.

A country cannot invade itself. So in all 3 of your examples no invasions took place.

---

And interesting take

I will disagree and say that as a matter of fact (de facto) in real life events.... Santa Anna and the Mexican Army from Mexico City did invade Texas with an armed force against the wishes of the local residents.

The British did send an invading military force to the colonies to suppress an independence movement.

And DC did the same in the 1860s

For that matter the Jews in Judea and the Celts in Britain felt the same toward the Roman Emperors

But of course its very rare for a central government to give up control (and revenue) from provinces who want out....

---

Is the US currently invading itself?

---

No States are currently withdrawing from the Union

If they did....and Trump sent in armed troops to force them back into the Union... then a very strong case could be made those States are being invaded by armed forces.

"And where is there to be found, in our history, or our constitutions, either State or National, any warrant for saying, that a President of the United States has been empowered by the Constitution to extend martial law over the whole country...He has no such authority." -Curtis

---

No states had legally withdrawn from the Union then either.

In your argument then all those sovereign citizen people that declare they are not under US jurisdiction would actually be right then.

---

A group of individuals declaring themselves sovereign and a long established State are two different things....by law and by long held English tradition and custom.

"Each State is organized as a complete government, holding the purse and wielding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of the confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and to repel coercion as a nation might repel invasion. Coercion, if it were possible, is out of the question." - November 9, 1860, The New York Herald

"the South's sons were among those that drafted the Constitution...Yet as the early of the country soon demonstrated, that Union was just a Union of States, and not a nation in any organic sense."-Prof. Carl Degler (Stanford Historian, Pulitzer Prize Winner)

["Sir, I am, in a word, a Virginian -- a citizen of a Commonwealth that had existed as a sovereign organized government for 200 years before the U.S. had a name."-John Janney (President VA Secession Convention) 1862, explaining why he supported secession]

[Not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty" among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation "was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority." Indeed, "the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized."] - Chief Justice Roberts et al, 2013 (, Shelby County v. Holder, June 25)

Vs the "sovereign citizen" concept....

[Sovereign citizens are individuals who belong to a loose, decentralized movement of anti-government activists who believe that federal, state, and local laws do not apply to them unless they consent to them.

The sovereign citizen ideology has no valid basis in English common law or tradition.... In actual legal history, common law is a system of law built on judicial precedents developed by courts over centuries. It was never a system that allowed individuals to declare themselves completely exempt from statutory laws, taxes, or state authority.

Sovereign citizens believe that common law dictates that a person cannot be bound by a law unless they individually consent to it. In reality, English common law always recognized the absolute authority of the King-in-Parliament (parliamentary sovereignty) to pass statutory laws that bind all subjects, regardless of personal consent]

---

But according to you a state just has to "declare" that they are leaving the union (without a vote of the people they represent) and it is done.

---

I never said that....

We are talking about the right of a State to leave. (vs a common person claiming "sovereign citizen status").

And of course a State would need to consult their people and citizens on that course of action.

Virginia in 1861 represents that process....

[Initial Rejection (April 4, 1861): The Virginia convention first voted 90 to 45 against secession, as most delegates initially favored remaining in the Union

The Turning Point (Mid-April 1861): After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the political situation changed completely.

Secession Voted (April 17, 1861): Delegates reversed course and voted to adopt the Ordinance of Secession

Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum, though western counties largely voted against it]

---

Yes you have.

Delegates. Not the people.

You keep missing half of what I say, ignore the rest and only argue specific points.

---

The people did vote..... [Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum...]

I assume you are not reading the full replies. In fact you might be the one who is ignoring the full text of these discussions...

Absolutely a public referendum vote or special convention voted on by the citizens would be need for such a serious course of action.

[Tennessee held a popular referendum that successfully approved secession after initially voting against a convention. Texas and Virginia held conventions that voted for secession and then submitted those ordinances to the voters for confirmation.
Kentucky and Missouri did not officially secede, though rump factions/shadow governments attempted irregular or unauthorized secession votes later on.
Maryland and Delaware rejected secession entirely]

[Texas held its vote (February 23, 1861): 46,153 to 14,747 in favor.]

---

Delegates are NOT the people.

Conventions are NOT the people. Stop changing your argument.

Stop trying to make racist slave owners look better. They owned other people. There is NO defending that.

Period.

And I refuse to waste any more time with someone trying to defend RACISTS while ignoring that he is arguing for sovereign citizens.

---

The Delegates (voted on by the people) then submitted their vote to the people for a vote ....Virginia and Texas being examples here....the people then had a chance to vote on the idea of secession in a general vote.

I am not sure if you are just not reading that....or don't want to read it....and just rely on your own emotional reaction to these facts.

[Public Ratification (May 23, 1861): Virginia voters overwhelmingly approved the ordinance in a statewide referendum...]

[Texas held an official, legally binding statewide vote on secession on February 23, 1861, resulting in a landslide victory to leave the United States.

Following the election of Abraham Lincoln, a state Secession Convention drafted an Ordinance of Secession. To ensure democratic legitimacy, they submitted it to the public. The final tally was 46,153 votes in favor and 14,747 against (roughly 76% in favor)....ratify the decision via a popular referendum

cowboycwr said:

---

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/01/22/primary-sources-slavery-as-the-cause-of-the-civil-war/

---

I'm throwing one of the largest BS flags I've ever thrown on this post/link!!!

Spend a few minutes reading up on authors, contributors, expectations, intent of site, etc. and tell me how fair that site is. Seriously?

YANKEES GO HOME!


As Charlie Daniels sang so beautifully in 1974………."The South's Gonna Do It (Again)

Well, gather 'round, gather 'round chillrin', get down
Well you can get down chillrin', get loud
Well you can get loud and be proud
Well you can be proud an' be proud you're a Rebel
'Cause the South's gonna do it again, yes, it is