Smithsonian: You Are Racist If...

[shunyadragon]

It's the supreme law of the land. This has been explained to him previously.

Actually your ignorance is profound, as the rest of the Keystone Cops, The Constitution is not the Law. Laws are enacted by the LEgislative and Executive Branch of the government. The Supreme Court decisions are based on the Constitution as to the Constitutioanlity of the Laws. Based on the Constitution the Court dcision Texas vs White the secession of a state from the Union is unconstitutional, and the state remains a part of the Union.

Basic High School level US government.

[shunyadragon]

Let's try this again...


The Constitution is the law, you dope.

Regardless the Supreme Court Decision Texas vs White determined that the secession of a state is unconstitutional, and the state remains a part of the Union.

NO. The laws are based on the Constirution. Basic High School US Government. The Constitution first then the laws.

[seer]

Let's try this again...


The Constitution is the law, you dope.

[shunyadragon]

Ther is the description of what is called 'Constitutional Law' which all legeslative and Executive Branch Laws are based on. The Supreme Makes its decisions based
Definition of Constitutional Law

Source: https://hirealawyer.findlaw.com/choosing-the-right-lawyer/constitutional-law.html

Constitutional law refers to rights carved out in the federal and state constitutions. The majority of this body of law has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, which interpret their respective constitutions and ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not violate constitutional limits.

© Copyright Original Source

Tge Supreme Court decision ruled that secession of a state passed from the union by a statelegesture and Executive branch is unconstitutional, and that decision has never been over ruled nor changed in history.

[Mountain Man]

Regardless the Supreme Court Decision Texas vs White determined that the secession of a state is unconstitutional, and the state remains a part of the Union.

NO. The laws are based on the Constirution. Basic High School US Government. The Constitution first then the laws.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..." (source)

I'm guessing you failed basic high school civics.

If secession is unconstitutional then that would mean it a violates the Constitution. What clause in the Constitution did the judges cite to support their ruling?

[seer]

Regardless the Supreme Court Decision Texas vs White determined that the secession of a state is unconstitutional, and the state remains a part of the Union.

NO. The laws are based on the Constirution. Basic High School US Government. The Constitution first then the laws.

Then tell us which provision of the Constitution they used?

[Leonhard]

The linux community is considering renaming master/slave configurations to primary/secondary. Github is actually doing it. I prefer the latter name to be honest.

[Leonhard]

What on earth are you talking about? Again what law prevents a state from leaving the Union?

I'm not sure there's any formal way of a state leaving the union, however if it did leave it would have to pay its share of the 22$ trillion dollar national debt as a leaving tax. That alone, and the forfeiting of all the social benefits, might not be something that Texans would want. Also they'd have to hand over to the US a lot of the military arsenal. The Pantex nuclear facility would have to be dismantled and any remaining nuclear weapons transferred to the states...

It would have consequences for Texas to be sure.

[shunyadragon]

Then tell us which provision of the Constitution they used?

The Supreme Court decision stands today as a fact of Judicial history and it has never been over turned nor changed.

Chief Justice Chase wrote:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinion

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

© Copyright Original Source

Debate over . . .

[Mountain Man]

The linux community is considering renaming master/slave configurations to primary/secondary. Github is actually doing it. I prefer the latter name to be honest.

That's silly.

[seer]

The Supreme Court decision stands today as a fact of Judicial history and it has never been over turned nor changed.

Chief Justice Chase wrote:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinion

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

© Copyright Original Source

Debate over . . .

Hey idiot the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. So I will ask again, which provision of the Constitution did they used? Or do admit that no Constitutional provision was used?

[Leonhard]

That's silly.

It's a small change, and completely unproblematic. I see no reason not to do it, and I see a small reason to do it. The effort to do it is negligible and so it is being done.

[shunyadragon]

Hey idiot the Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution. So I will ask again, which provision of the Constitution did they used? Or do admit that no Constitutional provision was used?

Pleas note lesson in reading comprehension. The Suprem Court decision cited both the Article of Confederation and the Constitution. Please read again sloooooowly. Note in bold.

[RumTumTugger]

Pleas note lesson in reading comprehension. The Suprem Court decision cited both the Article of Confederation and the Constitution. Please read again sloooooowly. Note in bold.

the Preamble is not the Constitution It is a statement of what the goal of the Constitution is and has no legal standing and should not have been used by the SCOTUS back then. again if you cvannot point to the Admendment the SCOTUS used then they were wrong. just like they were wrong with the Dred Scott Ruling.

[seer]

Pleas note lesson in reading comprehension. The Suprem Court decision cited both the Article of Confederation and the Constitution. Please read again sloooooowly. Note in bold.

Idiot the preamble is not Constitutional law.