General Discussion

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)

56. the term rebellion is only used ONCE prior to the 14th

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 11:36 AM

Apr 2017

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So just because Lincoln uses it... it's not as if it has a clear constitutional meaning. And 1792 dictionary states it's insurrection against lawful authority. The Whiskey Rebellion fits... as well as the unlawful attack on Sumter. But what if the South seceded without seizing or attacking federal property?

https://books.google.com/books?id=j-UIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=rebellion&f=false

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Post removed [View all] Post removed Apr 2017 OP

The founders provided a mechanism to add new states but no mechanism for them to leave. Statistical Apr 2017 #1

but if secession wasn't prohibited... eniwetok Apr 2017 #6

"leaving aside the rather tortured 1869 Texas v White decision" jberryhill Apr 2017 #2

Excellent (am *not* being sarcastic). So what about Scotland & Catalonia? UTUSN Apr 2017 #4

As they are not states of the USA, this is hardly relevant to us, is it? Hekate Apr 2017 #34

Extrapolating from the literal appears to be like taking UTUSN Apr 2017 #38

I am not familiar with the laws of the UK or Spain jberryhill Apr 2017 #68

texas v white is "rather tortured" because it doesn't give him the answer he was looking for. unblock Apr 2017 #5

pray tell, what answer was that??? eniwetok Apr 2017 #9

i read minds rather well whenever someone pretty much spells it out in an o.p. unblock Apr 2017 #15

your unremarkable talent seems to have missed MY OTHER ARGUMENT... eniwetok Apr 2017 #47

if you're not convinced by well settled law, i rather doubt a few internet replies will convince you unblock Apr 2017 #62

sure... eniwetok Apr 2017 #75

I take it you've never read Texas v White. eniwetok Apr 2017 #7

I was educated in Texas and the only odd thing I can remember is TexasProgresive Apr 2017 #8

I love your time machine "logic" eniwetok Apr 2017 #11

No, and if you actually read Texas v White, you would understand why jberryhill Apr 2017 #13

if you want to discuss citizenship start your own thread... eniwetok Apr 2017 #48

c'mon, you're just being argumentative for the sake of argumentation. unblock Apr 2017 #19

so leaving aside your temporal incongruity... eniwetok Apr 2017 #22

That one has stood for a long time jberryhill Apr 2017 #28

there's no temporal incongruity. unblock Apr 2017 #41

No, since the "confederates" lost the war. The American war for independence was legal because... PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #3

How many nations fell to Nazi Germany? eniwetok Apr 2017 #10

We're talking about "independence"/"secession" not invasions. Please keep to the topic. nt PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #12

Hey YOU were the one who raised the "might makes right" "doctrine" eniwetok Apr 2017 #21

First your post questioned what was "legal" not what might be "moral". PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #23

Is Russia Behind California Secession Effort? jberryhill Apr 2017 #14

RED HERRING ALERT!! eniwetok Apr 2017 #20

Quite a feat for a member since 2016 jberryhill Apr 2017 #24

Thank you, jberryhill. I so much prefer the fact-based universe. Hekate Apr 2017 #31

LOL! Adsos Letter Apr 2017 #39

RED HERRING ALERT #2 eniwetok Apr 2017 #50

You joined this site in 2016 and weren't posting in 2004 jberryhill Apr 2017 #51

promise you'll retract your accusation eniwetok Apr 2017 #64

Texit Forces Welcomed At A Russian Separatist Conference jberryhill Apr 2017 #66

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #70

What was your DU name in '04? Hekate Apr 2017 #35

I'm sure some irrational few have jumped to the conclusion I was for the Confederacy. eniwetok Apr 2017 #16

No, that's not the conclusion at all jberryhill Apr 2017 #17

and those purposes are? eniwetok Apr 2017 #18

You are wrong jberryhill Apr 2017 #25

You don't know me... so quit trying to insinuate I'm a Putin Tool... eniwetok Apr 2017 #52

There's more than one way to destroy a nation, and Putin knows it. Leave my state alone. Hekate Apr 2017 #33

Well said, Hekate. Adsos Letter Apr 2017 #42

I AWAIT those who want to discuss the constitutional issues... so please stop your personal insults. eniwetok Apr 2017 #53

As long as nobody includes in such discussion the most relevant Constitutional decision on the topic jberryhill Apr 2017 #54

back to your fatuous time machine argument? eniwetok Apr 2017 #57

The "time machine argument" is only fatuous... jberryhill Apr 2017 #63

and yet the question was WAS SECESSION LEGAL IN 1861? eniwetok Apr 2017 #69

Quite obviously because you don't understand either the decision or how courts work jberryhill Apr 2017 #71

another pathetic argument... eniwetok Apr 2017 #72

And you're waiting in this time machine you keep brigning up whenever anyone addresses synergie Apr 2017 #84

At a certain level, law becomes nothing more than a social compact HopeAgain Apr 2017 #26

No you nailed it jberryhill Apr 2017 #29

back to your personal attacks? eniwetok Apr 2017 #61

Why do you believe the process of amending the Constitution is undemocratic? jberryhill Apr 2017 #65

do the math.... eniwetok Apr 2017 #77

So? jberryhill Apr 2017 #79

Because it takes more than a simple majority dumbcat Apr 2017 #80

if you can't make a point without bastardizing my argument... you haven't made a point eniwetok Apr 2017 #83

It's worth noting that the CSA preempted any possibility of legal secession by attacking. cemaphonic Apr 2017 #27

Yes, the question of legal secession was rendered moot by the firing on Sumpter... Rollo Apr 2017 #32

I believe the first state to secede was 5 months before Sumter eniwetok Apr 2017 #60

1. No 2. Yes. ismnotwasm Apr 2017 #30

I will quote Lincoln: Worktodo Apr 2017 #36

the term rebellion is only used ONCE prior to the 14th eniwetok Apr 2017 #56

absolutely, but you'll get no support from the authority-lovers here. "the consent of the governed" TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #37

The Constitution provides its own mechanism for Amendment jberryhill Apr 2017 #40

if you want to appeal to a "higher law", that's a different question. unblock Apr 2017 #43

Without the consent of the slaves, there was no legal right geek tragedy Apr 2017 #44

Ooooh, "authority-lovers," is it? You should trot on over to the United Airlines threads... Hekate Apr 2017 #45

Did the slaves consent to be governed? Adrahil Apr 2017 #55

I believe secession was legal Yupster Apr 2017 #46

NO, and YES hatrack Apr 2017 #49

The touchstone here is to find out... MicaelS Apr 2017 #58

Short answer is no. Buzz cook Apr 2017 #59

but the first state to secede was in Dec 1860... eniwetok Apr 2017 #73

And what legal mechanism did those states use? Buzz cook Apr 2017 #85

It seems to me the civil war was the whole poiint: to settle the issue more firmly. CTyankee Apr 2017 #67

The South tried. Many people died. The South lost. MineralMan Apr 2017 #74

Thanks for the op. Some very good replies. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #76

illegal and justified steve2470 Apr 2017 #78

seriously, WHY DEBATE THIS TOPIC ? steve2470 Apr 2017 #81

+1000 wcast Apr 2017 #82