Secession today

[TomEvans]

The CSA failed to cite the 1783 Treaty of Paris in asserting the national sovereignty of each states; and so failed by its resultant claim of revolution instead; and as a result, the USA was able to ignore the Treaty in its legal argument of national union.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris is still in effect in maintaining the national sovereignty of each state, and the events of 1861 did not prejudice it.

Therefore every state can assert the Treaty as a legal proof that the states remain internationally sovereign; and the US government will be forced to either address the Treaty, or concede the argument entirely.

Meanwhile there is no legal rebuttal to the Treaty-- which not only formally established the states as 13 fully de jure sovereign nations; but also provided the legal mechanism by which they unilaterally separated from the Confederation to become UN-united from the other states in 1787-1790.

So the federal myth would be exposed before it could be claimed.

 

[5fish]

Meanwhile there is no legal rebuttal to the Treaty-- which not only formally established the states as 13 fully de jure sovereign nations; but also provided the legal mechanism by which they unilaterally separated from the Confederation to become UN-united from the other states in 1787-1790.

A will play but this article does more to promote your ideas than you ever did...

https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-false-doctrine-of-inherent-sovereign-authority

The federal doctrine’s advocates usually begin with the premise that states were never severally sovereign, because upon issuance of the Declaration of Independence (or even before), sovereignty vested in the Continental Congress, representing the Union. From that premise, they argue that sovereignty passed to the Confederation Congress and then to the federal government, unimpaired by the restrictions on central power imposed by the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.

James Wilson popularized the doctrine of inherent sovereign authority in 1785 in an effort to liberate the Confederation Congress from the restrictions imposed by the Articles. Yet even he did not apply it to the new federal government erected by the Constitution. Moreover, in 1907, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the doctrine, pointing to its clear inconsistency with both the Constitution’s enumerated-power scheme and the explicit language of the Tenth Amendment.

 

[5fish]

civics time...

 

[TomEvans]

A will play but this article does more to promote your ideas than you ever did...

https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/the-false-doctrine-of-inherent-sovereign-authority

The federal doctrine’s advocates usually begin with the premise that states were never severally sovereign, because upon issuance of the Declaration of Independence (or even before), sovereignty vested in the Continental Congress, representing the Union. From that premise, they argue that sovereignty passed to the Confederation Congress and then to the federal government, unimpaired by the restrictions on central power imposed by the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.

James Wilson popularized the doctrine of inherent sovereign authority in 1785 in an effort to liberate the Confederation Congress from the restrictions imposed by the Articles. Yet even he did not apply it to the new federal government erected by the Constitution. Moreover, in 1907, the Supreme Court firmly rejected the doctrine, pointing to its clear inconsistency with both the Constitution’s enumerated-power scheme and the explicit language of the Tenth Amendment.

You keep on posting those quotes. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Neither the USA or the CSA ever cited Article I of the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

The treaty is still in force; while the state electorates ratified the Constitution as sovereign principals establishing agents.

 

[TomEvans]

civics time...

Shove that back where it came from, and this time flush it... .the Constitution never established a national government.

The US government does not even claim such; only complete morons do, since the US government would not even ATTEMPT such for that reason.





But of course this is complete garbage:



So that's plain English, and it means what it says.... all ignorance to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[5fish]

No... Here the argument of yours is not knew but here a AI summary...

the Treaty of Paris (1783) was not legally superior to the U.S. Constitution. While the treaty was considered supreme law of the land under the Articles of Confederation—often overriding state laws—the Constitution, ratified later, established itself as the highest law, to which all treaties must comply.

Relationship to State Law: The Treaty of Paris (1783) forced states to respect British debt repayment, overriding local laws that sought to cancel those debts, setting the stage for the Supremacy Clause.

Constitutional Hierarchy: Under U.S. law, the Constitution is the supreme law, and treaties are considered equal to federal statutes, meaning a treaty cannot override the Constitution.
Role of Both: The treaty (1783) established the independent United States, while the Constitution (1787) structured the sovereign government of that nation.

Judicial View: In Reid v. Covert (1957), the Supreme Court affirmed that no treaty can authorize what the Constitution forbids.

The Treaty of Paris (1783) is often cited as the legal foundation of American independence, but it was not a superior instrument to the Constitution itself.

 

[TomEvans]

No... Here the argument of yours is not knew but here a AI summary...

the Treaty of Paris (1783) was not legally superior to the U.S. Constitution. While the treaty was considered supreme law of the land under the Articles of Confederation—often overriding state laws—the Constitution, ratified later, established itself as the highest law, to which all treaties must comply.

LOL okay you've totally missed the plot.

The states each ratified the Constitution, as 13 fully-sovereign nations; each after withdrawing from the Confederation by their power as such.

Relationship to State Law: The Treaty of Paris (1783) forced states to respect British debt repayment, overriding local laws that sought to cancel those debts, setting the stage for the Supremacy Clause.

The Constitution did not "establish itself" LOL, it was established the each state's respective electorate as the sovereign principal.

I'll leave you to your ignorance.

 

[5fish]

AI answer to you...

The claim that the "Treaty of Paris of 1784" is a "false claim by secessionists" is complex and often misrepresented. While there is no treaty legally titled the "Treaty of Paris of 1784," the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, was ratified by the US Confederation Congress on January 14, 1784.
Library of Congress (.gov) +1
Secessionist arguments often seize upon the ratification date (1784) and the specific language of Article 1, which lists the 13 states individually, to argue that independence was granted to each state as a separate sovereign nation, rather than as a unified nation-state, thereby claiming a legal basis for later secession.
calvetconnect.blog +3
Key Historical Facts regarding the Treaty:

• The Treaty is Real: The Treaty of Paris (1783) is the legitimate, internationally recognized agreement that ended the Revolutionary War.
• Ratification Date: Congress ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784, in Annapolis, Maryland, which is known as "Ratification Day".
• Language of Sovereignty: Article 1 acknowledges the "United States" and lists all 13 states individually, recognizing them as "free sovereign and independent states," and states that the King treats with them as such.
• Context of Individual States: The argument that this made them entirely separate, sovereign nations is a legal interpretation often used in secessionist theories. However, historical context indicates that the Treaty was negotiated by a unified Continental Congress and intended for all 13 colonies to work collectively.
  History.com +6

In summary, the document itself is not a "false claim," but the interpretation of it as proof that the U.S. is a voluntary compact of sovereign states that can leave at any time is a contentious legal and political interpretation frequently employed in secessionist literatur

 

[jgoodguy]

The CSA failed to cite the 1783 Treaty of Paris in asserting the national sovereignty of each states; and so failed by its resultant claim of revolution instead; and as a result, the USA was able to ignore the Treaty in its legal argument of national union.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris is still in effect in maintaining the national sovereignty of each state, and the events of 1861 did not prejudice it.

Therefore every state can assert the Treaty as a legal proof that the states remain internationally sovereign; and the US government will be forced to either address the Treaty, or concede the argument entirely.

Meanwhile there is no legal rebuttal to the Treaty-- which not only formally established the states as 13 fully de jure sovereign nations; but also provided the legal mechanism by which they unilaterally separated from the Confederation to become UN-united from the other states in 1787-1790.

So the federal myth would be exposed before it could be claimed.

Not any State, just those specified in the treaty.

 

[TomEvans]

Not any State, just those specified in the treaty.

The Equal Footing Doctrine is a U.S. constitutional principle ensuring that all new states admitted to the Union enter with the same sovereign rights, powers, and responsibilities as the original thirteen colonies.

 

[5fish]

The Equal Footing Doctrine is a U.S. constitutional principle ensuring that all new states admitted to the Union enter with the same sovereign rights, powers, and responsibilities as the original thirteen colonies

You can not have your cake and eat it too... The equal footing doctrine was a court ruling about state relationship to the Constitution... You keep saying the Constitution is void and the 13 original states were free independent states... Those other states were from under our Constitution and the treaty of Paris does not include new states... They are the property of the United States... and are not free and independent because you void the Constitution...

 

[diane]

LOL okay you've totally missed the plot.

The states each ratified the Constitution, as 13 fully-sovereign nations; each after withdrawing from the Confederation by their power as such.

Relationship to State Law: The Treaty of Paris (1783) forced states to respect British debt repayment, overriding local laws that sought to cancel those debts, setting the stage for the Supremacy Clause.

The Constitution did not "establish itself" LOL, it was established the each state's respective electorate as the sovereign principal.

I'll leave you to your ignorance.

Each state is a fully sovereign nation because of the Supremacy Clause?

Well, you certainly are misreading the Treaty of Paris, at any rate. All it ever did was acknowledge the rebellious British colonies were no longer under British control - legal clarity required listing them - and thus the war was over. That is all the treaty ever did, or ever was intended to do. Perhaps you should study some of the letters and papers of the Founders - especially the influential but not well-known ones - to see their intent and thought behind construction of the Constitution as it is now. Each former colony ratified the Constitution and thereby became a state of a union, a nation. If this had not happened, there would be no expansion of the United States as history shows us did happen. As badly as former colonies wanted to pass the Alleghenies to settle Tennessee, all the exploration of the Louisiana Purchase, clear past the Mexican-American War which added even more states and territories... Well, since these were not named in the Treaty of Paris they cannot exist. Is that your stance? We're back to your refusal to accept the existence of the United States.

You're clinging to your door in the vast ocean while your ship has gone down. Again - you want to believe your treaty establishes state sovereignty when it doesn't establish anything but released colonies and an end to a war.

 

[TomEvans]

Well, you certainly are misreading the Treaty of Paris, at any rate. All it ever did was acknowledge the rebellious British colonies were no longer under British control - legal clarity required listing them - and thus the war was over.

Actually it did THIS:



And that's perfectly in accordance with THIS:



And THIS.



No ambiguity there-- it only means ONE THING.

As opposed to THIS:



Except they were never DEPENDENT ON "one another or the Union" for sovereignty... and so President Neckbeard's INFERENCES about their "mutual pledge and actions" supposedly "SHOWING" that they FORMED a national union from 1776 onward, DESPITE their express statements; are completely false and meaningless.

Each former colony ratified the Constitution and thereby became a state of a union, a nation.

The Constitution doesn't say that.... and neither does the US government.

Again, its legal argument of national union, dates back to 1776... which is thus wholly invalidated by your own admission, that this is FALSE.

On the contrary, the states did THIS:



And they did so by the principal sovereign authority of their respective STATE VOTERS; while simply DELEGATING powers to state and federal AGENTS.

And so this Founding objective was achieved just prior to ratifying the Constitution:



Because NOW, each state was supremely ruled by its respective VOTERS; who could OVERRULE their government AGENTS under popular sovereignty-- not simply choose among government-dictated OPTIONS.

The states did NOT form a Leviathan collective, ruled by the government officials, over a collective abstract "people" to whom they dictated TOKEN ULTIMATUMS; thus translating to an OLIGARCHY in the people's name.

And this is the ONLY way that the people could truly and literally CONSENT TO THEIR GOVERNMENT; i.e. by the majority expressing consent via ruling, while the minority IMPLIED consent by REMAINING in the state.

If this had not happened, there would be no expansion of the United States as history shows us did happen.

International unions can expand just as easily as national ones... the US simply acquired territories with the option of making them sovereign states, according to the Founding precepts of all people having the right to self-government.

So yes: the Treaty of Paris STILL recognizes each state as a fully-sovereign nation, and Constitutional ratification still recognizes its respective voters at its sovereign principals over government agents. This was NEVER officially changed.

 

[diane]

Actually it did THIS:

View attachment 20709

And that's perfectly in accordance with THIS:

View attachment 20710

And THIS.

View attachment 20711

No ambiguity there-- it only means ONE THING.

As opposed to THIS:

View attachment 20712

Except they were never DEPENDENT ON "one another or the Union" for sovereignty... and so President Neckbeard's INFERENCES about their "mutual pledge and actions" supposedly "SHOWING" that they FORMED a national union from 1776 onward, DESPITE their express statements; are completely false and meaningless.




The Constitution doesn't say that.... and neither does the US government.

Again, its legal argument of national union, dates back to 1776... which is thus wholly invalidated by your own admission, that this is FALSE.

On the contrary, the states did THIS:

View attachment 20713

And they did so by the principal sovereign authority of their respective STATE VOTERS; while simply DELEGATING powers to state and federal AGENTS.

And so this Founding objective was achieved just prior to ratifying the Constitution:

View attachment 20714

Because NOW, each state was supremely ruled by its respective VOTERS; who could OVERRULE their government AGENTS under popular sovereignty-- not simply choose among government-dictated OPTIONS.

The states did NOT form a Leviathan collective, ruled by the government officials, over a collective abstract "people" to whom they dictated TOKEN ULTIMATUMS; thus translating to an OLIGARCHY in the people's name.

And this is the ONLY way that the people could truly and literally CONSENT TO THEIR GOVERNMENT; i.e. by the majority expressing consent via ruling, while the minority IMPLIED consent by REMAINING in the state.



International unions can expand just as easily as national ones... the US simply acquired territories with the option of making them sovereign states, according to the Founding precepts of all people having the right to self-government.

So yes: the Treaty of Paris STILL recognizes each state as a fully-sovereign nation, and Constitutional ratification still recognizes its respective voters at its sovereign principals over government agents. This was NEVER officially changed.

Wow, Tom, that's impressive! The whole 9 yards. Let me see...there's so much to choose from... Ah! "International unions can expand just as easily as national ones." So that would be an empire. Are you saying the United States does not exist but as an empire does?

 

[TomEvans]

Wow, Tom, that's impressive! The whole 9 yards. Let me see...there's so much to choose from... Ah! "International unions can expand just as easily as national ones." So that would be an empire. Are you saying the United States does not exist but as an empire does?

Ask me in English and I might be able to answer, I don't speak Gibberish.

 

[diane]

Ask me in English and I might be able to answer, I don't speak Gibberish.

My bad - I thought you were fluent in gibberish! Is not an empire an international union? Are you suggesting the United States is an empire?

 

[TomEvans]

My bad - I thought you were fluent in gibberish!

You think a LOT of things that aren't true.

No, I'm afraid it's just you. English only please.

Is not an empire an international union?

Not in the legal definition.

 

[diane]

You think a LOT of things that aren't true.

No, I'm afraid it's just you. English only please.



Not in the legal definition.

Explain.

 

[LJMYERS]

I am still working the records of General Robert E Lee's friend Civil War Artist George Leo Frankenistein and it seem many West Pointers went to the Frankenstein Castle in Frankfort Germany of more training after graduation from Robert E Lee's West Point. A more modern picture of the Frankenstein Castle north West of Frankfort Germany.

 

[TomEvans]

Explain.

Empires, by definition, are sovereign nations.

The US, meanwhile, is an international union that set GLOBAL PRECEDENT for enabling consensual government through popular sovereignty; with the actual state-citizen-voters being the sovereign principals OVER their respective state AS a fully de jure sovereign nation-- who simply delegated power to government agents, and so could OVERRULE them at will by simply REVOKING it.

Thus the state-voters consented to their government by the majority expressly consenting by ruling, while the minority implicitly consented by REMAINING.

And under the Equal Footing doctrine, every new state was likewise a DE JURE popularly sovereign nation, under the supreme rule of its respective state voters; and was NOT simply the province of an empire under oligarchic rule of sitting officials and their puppeteers in industry.

This happened only by DE FACTO usurpation during the Lincoln Administration, under the fictitious historical accounts which simply IGNORED the 1783 Treaty of Paris entirely, as well as the Article of Confederation regarding each state's sovereignty, freedom and independence; to claim that they formed a national union in 1776.



And this turned it INTO an empire under oligarchy, where "consensual government" simply meant being graciously allowed the privilege of choosing your supreme rulers... in elections rigged by Crony Capitalists-- all of to which the people do NOT consent.



But the 1783 Treaty of Paris remains in force for each state being a de jure sovereign nation; and the voters IN each state remain their own sovereign principals, by ratification under popular sovereignty.