should jeff davis have been hanged?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I support the death penalty for treason, so yes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

The South had no right to secede from the Union.  The Constitution is an unbreakable contract.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

The South had no right to secede from the Union.  The Constitution is an unbreakable contract.

Have you ever heard of the Hartford Convention and similar events?  The idea of secession was not unique to the South, they were just the ones who acted.  There were several states that entered into the Union only under the pretext that COULD secede if they wanted too. 

Indeed, and none of the states that proposed leaving the Union should have been allowed to, if they had tried.

Which states?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

New England entered the Union only on the condition they could leave later?  That sounds odd.  Besides, it doesn't matter.  Since it was no written into the Constitution that states could leave later, they are unable to.  The Constitution is permanent and binding.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

No, it's not.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakble contract, and apparently you do not.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

No, it's not.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakble contract, and apparently you do not.

Why do you choose to disregard the 10th amendment?  I assume you also disregard 1-26 as well?  Possibly the whole thing?

It is called interpretation.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakable contract.  The 10th Amendment doesn't allow states to murder people for wearing green shirts; it likewise does not allow for secession.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Thank you!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I might have ask Lee to head up Reconstruction as well.

That would have been wonderful, but the RR's would have never allowed it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Thank you!

Benconstipated, if you thought that, why didn't you say it?  Although I think your both wrong

Seriously, DWDL, if "Benconstipated" is the best insult you can think of, then that's pretty pathetic.  And I did say that the 10th Amendment did not apply to secession, you responded by asking if I disregarded the other Amendments as well.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal. Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid. Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal. Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid. Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

If only individuals can ratify contracts, then the Constitution is not a contract, because it was ratified by the states. You are simply contradicting yourself.

I see the States as individual parties, each of whom signed a contract: the Constitution.  Perhaps that doesn't make sense, but it does to me.