Re: breaking away from the USA is against the constitution

Post #366,524 by boxley 11/19/12 3:57:42 PM Reply	Re: breaking away from the USA is against the constitution you want to show what part of the constitution that is in? They were afraid to let a judge look at that in 1865 http://www.encyclope...nment#start_entry The defendant demanded a trial as the best forum for proving the constitutionality of secession, and the government requested numerous delays to prepare its case. Although the indictment was finished in March 1868, the Johnson impeachment further delayed the case. The court finally heard preliminary motions in December 1868, when the defense asked for a dismissal claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the double jeopardy restriction of the Fifth Amendment. The court divided in its official opinion and certified the question to the United States Supreme Court. Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #366,525 by malraux 11/19/12 5:28:11 PM Reply	Texas v. White, 1869 The Articles of Confederation called the union created "perpetual". The Constitution replaced the Articles in order to create "a more perfect Union". Chief Justice Salmon Chase in the decision: 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? As a result, the southern states never actually seceded. They just rebelled. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #366,526 by Another Scott 11/19/12 5:51:24 PM Reply	Excellent. Thanks.
Post #366,530 by boxley 11/19/12 7:30:46 PM Reply	you sure you want THAT case? In this latter sense, the word seems to be used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of government Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #366,740 by mmoffitt 11/26/12 11:04:06 AM Reply	FIFY. In this latter sense the word seems to be used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

Welcome to IWETHEY!