The American Revolution
- Thread starter Matt McKeon
- Start date
Opinion noted.
What is your legal argument, that the states EVER formed a national union, vs. international?
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
There no legal argument because you have not presented one supporting your claims... Self-Coup is a form of presentism... a mistake many do...
pres·ent·ism
/ˈpreznˌ(t)izəm/
!. Uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
LOL don't quit your day-job to practice law.
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
There was one legal case, and you know it... I was hoping you could show me a legal case that supports your cause... oh, none...
The landmark 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White, which established that states cannot legally secede from the U.S., affirming the Union is "indestructible,"
I said legal argument, not "legal case."
Those terms are not identical.
That was the legal argument by which the federal government authorized the use of Total War against the states-- and the suspension of habeus corpus, thus claiming that state secession was "rebellion," which required legally asserting that the Union was political superior to the states.
And Lincoln's Message to Congress was upheld by Congress, to claim that the states had ALWAYS had the Union as their political superior.
FROM THE START, i.e. 1776.
The Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869) did argue that the original 13 states had never been without a common political superior, and that the Union was not a voluntary compact among independent, sovereign states, but a perpetual union in which the states were always part of a larger political entity.
The Court did not argue that the original states surrendered sovereignty through the Constitution, but rather that they had never been fully sovereign in the first place — that the Union was not a loose confederation of independent states, but a single, unified nation with a central authority above the states.
This legal reasoning was used to justify the federal government's position that secession was illegal, based on the idea that the original states had never been sovereign and always had a political superior — the Union .
So it's the same legal argument that Lincoln used. The court simply AFFIRMED it.
As Madison WARNED:
And so it did-- i.e.:
- on the hypothesis that the US government WAS a higher tribunal the people of each state;
- the self-coup court DID concur with the other departments in usurped powers, and and forever subverted the Constitution beyond reach of any rightful remedy-- by FEDERAL SELF-COUP.
And your claim that "it's not a self-coup, because the term wasn't invented yet" when it happened, is beyond ludicrous... the shoe doesn't have to be older than the wearer, in order to FIT.
For example from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup
By your logic, Wikipedia is stupid because the term "self-coup" wasn't used before the mid-1990's.
But by LAW, we can add "USA: President Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861)" to that list....
...Particularly since it's STILL ONGOING.
Last edited:
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
Political thought has moved to this concept...
en.wikipedia.org
Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Popular sovereignty, being a principle, does not imply any particular political implementation.[a] Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote that "In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns".
www.ebsco.com
Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Popular sovereignty, being a principle, does not imply any particular political implementation.[a] Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote that "In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns".
States’ rights and state sovereignty | Research Starters | EBSCO Research
<p>States' rights and state sovereignty refer to the political doctrine that emphasizes the autonomy and powers of individual states within the federal system of the United States. This concept has its roots in the early governance structure established by the Articles of Confederation, which...
There's no consent, when the federal officials usurp supreme national power from the electorate of each sovereign nation... thanks to an ongoing self-coup by Crony-Capitalist stooges.Political thought has moved to this concept...
Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia
Popular sovereignty is the principle that the leaders of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, who are the source of all political legitimacy. Popular sovereignty, being a principle, does not imply any particular political implementation.[a] Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote that "In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns".
States’ rights and state sovereignty | Research Starters | EBSCO Research
<p>States' rights and state sovereignty refer to the political doctrine that emphasizes the autonomy and powers of individual states within the federal system of the United States. This concept has its roots in the early governance structure established by the Articles of Confederation, which...
In 1783, each state was formally recognized by Great Britain as free, sovereign and independent-- as they had recognized each other in 1776.
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
The Brits recognized their Independence but I am laughing over the circle jerk among the colonies as justifying it as recognition...
Laugh it up, funny boy; but that's how revolutions WORK, hello?
It's called original intent and good-faith agreement-- which was BROKEN when certain government officials claimed that the states had NEVER been without a political superior in "the Union," to illegally seize power in an international self-coup by stabbing their post-Revolution brethren in the back.
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
You are falling into this...
philosophy of science, Falsification theory, Karl popper
The document discusses falsification and its importance in philosophy of science. [1] Falsification proposes that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to prove it false through testing or observation. [2] Karl Popper introduced the principle of falsification, stating...
www.slideshare.net
Evasion. Try to stay on-topic.You are falling into this...
philosophy of science, Falsification theory, Karl popper
The document discusses falsification and its importance in philosophy of science. [1] Falsification proposes that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to prove it false through testing or observation. [2] Karl Popper introduced the principle of falsification, stating...
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
No, the 13 Colonies are not supreme to the United States; they became the original states that formed the United States, declaring independence from Britain to create a new, sovereign nation where the federal government holds supreme power under the Constitution, superseding state authority in national matters, though the states retain significant power. The transition was from colonies to "United States" as free and independent states, governed by a new national structure.
The Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776, formally severed ties with Great Britain, proclaiming the thirteen American colonies as "Free and Independent States" with full sovereign powers to wage war, make peace, form alliances, and establish commerce, fundamentally changing their status from colonies to a new, self-governing nation. This declaration asserted that they were "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown" and possessed all rights of independent nations, a revolutionary act solidifying their new national identity.
In essence, the Declaration was the birth certificate of the United States, transforming thirteen separate colonies into a single, sovereign nation capable of acting on the world stage.
The original states were never greater than the nation they created... The United States...
The Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776, formally severed ties with Great Britain, proclaiming the thirteen American colonies as "Free and Independent States" with full sovereign powers to wage war, make peace, form alliances, and establish commerce, fundamentally changing their status from colonies to a new, self-governing nation. This declaration asserted that they were "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown" and possessed all rights of independent nations, a revolutionary act solidifying their new national identity.
In essence, the Declaration was the birth certificate of the United States, transforming thirteen separate colonies into a single, sovereign nation capable of acting on the world stage.
The original states were never greater than the nation they created... The United States...
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
Show me where it's not true...
Nothing is true where nothing is presented.
I'm asking you to quote me, the exact text which you claim formed a national union among the states?
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
No, but I will give you case law...
Key Case Law
- Texas v. White (1869): The Supreme Court held that the Constitution created a perpetual union, and states could not secede, affirming the U.S. as "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States".
- Coyle v. Smith (1911): Established the Equal Footing Doctrine, meaning new states enter the Union with the same sovereign powers as original states, preventing Congress from imposing conditions that restrict state authority.
- Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. N.C. Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n (1982): Described the U.S. as "a union of States, each having its own judicial system," highlighting the shared federal structure.
You're seriously claiming that an 1869 Supreme Court ruling, created a national union in 1776?
And the rest are even later.
My exact words were:
Court rulings, cannot form national unions among international ones.
They can only cite them where they exist.
And so if all you have is case law, then you just have a lot of invalid rulings....; a gavel is not a magic wand that can change facts of history.
The people have the inalienable right to consent to their government-- and that means INFORMED consent, not "fraud in the inducement."
Agreement based on government deception of historical fact, is not "consent to government;" the worst form of tyranny.
So when South Carolina said:
They were CORRECT by the facts of history-- though they didn't have to imply their continued existence as sovereign states; that's SORT of automatic when states DON'T expressly give up their sovereignty, as the law REQUIRES them to do when forming a national union.
And that's the legal precedent for national unions, while the Declaration of Independence declares a PLURALITY of free and independent states-- and does NOT form a national union which is their political superior, as Lincoln falsely claimed that the Declaration of Independence declared a national union which was political superior to the then-13 states:
.....and the Supreme Court just SWORE to this LIE, after the fact.
But as the law shows, the Union of the states WAS INDEED "a purely artificial and arbitrary relation," in the sense of being an international union of separate sovereign nations like the UN or the EU.
Salmon P. Fish was just a conniving huckster and con-artist, who got rich on Civil Warbucks through passing corrupt laws as Lincoln's store-bought treasury-secretary (becoming the namesake of the Manhattan Bank in his honor); and then he went on to protect their investment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court-historians.
Last edited:
5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 18,074
- Reaction score
- 5,794
SCOTUS ruling later reaffirmed we were in a union... SOCTUS affirmed that the union of states was perpetual and legal, and once in, you are in...
I have been telling you it's the people in total that give their consent to be governed, not the states... popular sovereignty... It's "we the people," not "we the states," glad to see you are learning...
And that is a self-coup, as proved by the historical fact that the states never consented to such a national union.
The states were 13 sovereign nations, and their respective electorates each ratified the Constitution FOR THEIR STATE ONLY.
Furthermore, the US government claims that the states ALWAYS consented to a national union from 1776 onward:
See that? it says that the states ALWAYS had the Union as their political superior...
....but the historical fact, is that they NEVER did.
That's proved by THIS:
Nine is less than 13, right?
