Smithsonian: You Are Racist If...

[Mountain Man]

You refuse to put your finger on it it is in the Preamble of the Constitution...

Is the preamble considered part of the legal code?

[shunyadragon]

Is the preamble considered part of the legal code?

The legal code as well as all court decisions are based on the Preamble and the Constitution.

The Preamble is the foundation as well as the Constitution as a whole for the enactment of laws. The possibility of secession is not granted in the Constitution nor the law.As cited the courts found that secession from the Union to be unconstitutional.

[Mountain Man]

The legal code as well as all court decisions are based on the Preamble and the Constitution.

The Preamble is the foundation as well as the constitution as a whole for the enactment of laws. The possibility of secession is not granted in the Constitution nor the law.As cited the courts found that secession from the Union to be unconstitutional.

Can you name a single court case that has been decided based on the Constitution's preamble? And I mean a case that has explicitly cited it as legal precedent.

[shunyadragon]

Can you name a single court case that has been decided based on the Constitution's preamble? And I mean a case that has explicitly cited it as legal precedent.

The writings I cited used the Preamble 'a more perfect union' was was grounds to reject secession.

I cite the court case Texas vs White that determined that the secession of Texas from the Union was Unconstitutional.

The Constitution was the basis for the decision as is all Court decisions in the history of the United States.

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/marbury-v-madison

The case that solidified the role of the judiciary The case solidified the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution,

© Copyright Original Source

The courts ultimately determine the Constitutionality of laws and interpretations of the Constitution. The Courts have determined that secession is illegal.

[seer]

You refuse to put your finger on it it is in the Preamble of the Constitution declaring a 'more perfect union,' with no provision for the states to secede.

that indeed the new Constitution inherited perpetuity from the language in the Articles and from other actions done prior to the Constitution. Historian Kenneth Stampp explains their view:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Civil_War_era_political_and_legal_views_on_secession

Of course, there were different opinions in the transition from the articles of Confederation and the Constitutions, but the dominant view was the transition for an indisolvable union once the Constitution was ratified with no provision for secession.

Lacking an explicit clause in the Constitution with which to establish the Union's perpetuity, the nationalists made their case, first, with a unique interpretation of the history of the country prior to the Philadelphia Convention; second, with inferences drawn from certain passages of the Constitution; and third, with careful selections from the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. The historical case begins with the postulate that the Union is older than the states. It quotes the reference in the Declaration of Independence to "these united colonies", contends that the Second Continental Congress actually called the states into being [i.e., "colonies" no longer], notes the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation, and ends with the reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives as one of its purposes the formation of "a more perfect Union".

© Copyright Original Source

Again Shuny, you can not point to any law that the South violated. Because no such law was ever instituted. When you speak of a dominant view, you are speaking of an opinion - not a binding law.

[seer]

The writings I cited used the Preamble 'a more perfect union' was was grounds to reject secession.

I cite the court case Texas vs White that determined that the secession of Texas from the Union was Unconstitutional.

The Constitution was the basis for the decision as is all Court decisions in the history of the United States.

Again, which law did the South violate? The Court can say what it wants, but based on what law?

[Mountain Man]

The writings I cited used the Preamble 'a more perfect union' was was grounds to reject secession.

I cite the court case Texas vs White that determined that the secession of Texas from the Union was Unconstitutional.

The Constitution was the basis for the decision as is all Court decisions in the history of the United States.

Did the Supreme Court cite the preamable as their reason for saying that secession was illegal? What law did they actually cite? So far your answers have not been very impressive.

[shunyadragon]

Did the Supreme Court cite the preamable as their reason for saying that secession was illegal? What law did they actually cite? So far your answers have not been very impressive.

The decision was based on the Constitution and not any law, because there is no law prohibiting secession. The Supreme Court as cited bases its decision based on the Constitution regardless. This is a fact of ALL Supreme Courst decisions in history since the decisions as cited. The Texas ve White is a fact of Supreme Court history of decisions based on the Constitutions as the landmark decisions as cited.

Seer is correct the Supreme Court decisions are NOT based on previous laws, but the decisions are based on whether the decision is justified based on the Constitution and NOT previous laws.

These are the facts of the Supreme Court decisions in history regardless of which part of the Constitution the decision is based on.

I did cite a previous historian that referenced the Preamble, and yes the Federalist Papers and previous writings do develop the the interpretation in history that are often the basis of the interpretations that the Supreme Court referenes for their interpretation..

[shunyadragon]

Again, which law did the South violate? The Court can say what it wants, but based on what law?

Supreme Court decisions in history, as cited, are not based on previous laws, but whether the decision or law is base don the Constitution.

[shunyadragon]

Again, which law did the South violate? The Court can say what it wants, but based on what law?

Supreme Court decisions in history, as cited, are not based on previous laws, but whether the decision or law is based on the Constitution.

Thank you for changing your picture. Your previous picture wa san embarrasment.

[rogue06]

Supreme Court decisions in history, as cited, are not based on previous laws, but whether the decision or law is based on the Constitution.

which is the highest law of the land

[seer]

Supreme Court decisions in history, as cited, are not based on previous laws, but whether the decision or law is based on the Constitution.

Thank you for changing your picture. Your previous picture wa san embarrasment.

To be honest Shuny, you would not be fit to clean Bobby Lee's boots! And it was time to give Columbus a little love...

[Mountain Man]

The decision was based on the Constitution and not any law, because there is no law prohibiting secession.

Bingo.

[Sparko]

Statistical Sparko, statistical. Read more carefully.

And whether you realize it or not, the fact you are white has made you getting to where you are easier than if you had been born black, all other things being equal.

That's actually demonstrably false. My dad was in the US Army. I had a couple of good friends who were black when living over in Germany in the mid 70s. Their fathers were the same rank as my dad and we all hung out together. I recently reconnected with both of them on Facebook and they are both middle class, have good jobs and families. In fact, since I am single and don't have a family, you could say they did better than I did. And by the way, they are both Republicans.

But I don't think anything will change your mind on this so..