Possible Montana Secession?

gtc said:
Missouri?

If so, forming a militia with the aim of attacking the Federal Government in support of the enslavement of fellow human beings seems rather unlike 'without cause' to me.

But I have long given up being surprised about how many people who call themselves libertarians complain about the Federal Government usurping State Government rights during the civil war while ignoring the fact that those State Governments were hell-bent on denying a large chunk of their population the individual right to not be a slave.
Click to expand...

The war had much more to due with debt than slavery. You are aware that the North had slaves as well? You are aware that The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebel States?
 
mijopaalmc said:
Then what are the essential characteristics of a contract? Which of these does the Enabling Act not fulfill?
Click to expand...

Did you even bother reading my post? As I said, you are just affirming the consequent. Yes, a contract must have offer, consideration and acceptance, but that does not mean that anything possessing those is necessarily a contract.

You also appear to have introduced, apparently out of nowhere, the idea that a contract is defined as having those three properties. At no point have I seen this stated anywhere else. Your sources say that a contract must have them, not that that is the definition of a contract. All apples must grow on an apple tree. Does that mean that "grows on an apple tree" is the definition of an apple?
 
Cuddles said:
Did you even bother reading my post? As I said, you are just affirming the consequent. Yes, a contract must have offer, consideration and acceptance, but that does not mean that anything possessing those is necessarily a contract.

You also appear to have introduced, apparently out of nowhere, the idea that a contract is defined as having those three properties. At no point have I seen this stated anywhere else. Your sources say that a contract must have them, not that that is the definition of a contract. All apples must grow on an apple tree. Does that mean that "grows on an apple tree" is the definition of an apple?
Click to expand...

I was just trying the display what I thought was a hidden premise in the other guy's argument, namely that he think s that "must have" means "is defined by". In general, discussions with him tend to be riddled with them. For instance, one of his favorite arguments is that, since science and religion both seek to explain the world around us, science is a religion. What really sums up his whole stance on argumentation for for me is that, when I had an IM discussion with him last night, he told me that he would get more hostile with me if I continued "using logic" to point out that he was affirming the consequent and not distributing his middle term.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.

It was an usurpation of power by force.

My own State had it's legislature imprisoned without cause.
Click to expand...

There you have it. State Rights are more important then Human Slavery
Thanks for reminding me why,although I have a lot of sympathy for some of their basic ideas like limits on governement, I will not go near the Libertarian movement.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Because the law did not allow for the invasion of sovereign States by the Federal government.
Click to expand...

Certainly it does. Article I, section 8, clause 15 specifically gives Congress the authority to "subdue insurrections" by force.

As soon as South Carolina declared its secession -- and especially after it fired on Federal troops at the Battle of Ft. Sumter --- it was in insurrection.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Because they really do not want the Constitution,they want The Articles Of Confederation back.
Click to expand...

I think it's broader than that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support their claims under law. So they have to manufacture some. The Constitution is a good place to start, because everyone has heard of it, and no one really knows what their "Constitutional rights" are (or aren't).

It's rather like the woos' "proof" that crystal hugging works through made up references. (Did you that an article in the Lancet proved that if you wear a rose quartz crystal around your neck, you will never get cancer?)
 
An additional point: for a "contract" to be valid, the parties must be competent, and the contract must presume the parties had a meeting of the minds. No competency, or no meeting of the minds, means no contract.
 
dudalb said:
There you have it. State Rights are more important then Human Slavery
Thanks for reminding me why,although I have a lot of sympathy for some of their basic ideas like limits on governement, I will not go near the Libertarian movement.
Click to expand...

Your incomplete knowledge of history is on display.

The Northern slaves were still slaves after the war.
 
drkitten said:
Certainly it does. Article I, section 8, clause 15 specifically gives Congress the authority to "subdue insurrections" by force.

As soon as South Carolina declared its secession -- and especially after it fired on Federal troops at the Battle of Ft. Sumter --- it was in insurrection.
Click to expand...

Try learning some history. Comic book and movie knowledge is all you are displaying here.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The war had much more to due with debt than slavery. You are aware that the North had slaves as well? You are aware that The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebel States?
Click to expand...

True, but it is my understanding that the border states enacted their own legislation to mirror the proclamation (I am not sure if they were other slave states). I think a federal proclamation was only necessary because the rebel states wouldn't pass their own legislation although I stand to be corrected.

I shall try to read up about Maryland in the war.
 
I think that most frustrating part of the Montana Secretary of State's statement is that it seems to be an overly simplistic interpretation of a moderately complex problem. The problem is moderately complex, because, while acts of Congress are generally not considered contracts at least in part because they are valid regardless of the consent of the individuals upon whom they are enacted (if the proper legislative procedure has been followed), the Enabling Act of 1889 has been interpreted by the SCOTUS at least twice to be a contract (see: U.S. v. Rickert and State of Montana ex rel Haire v. Rice). However, in ruling that the Enabling Act was a contract, the SCOTUS has never seen it fit to dissolve the the contract because it has been breached. Thus, Montana's bid for "secession", while it does have some backing in case law in so far as the SCOTUS considers the Enabling Act a contract, is at best legally dubious because there is no precedent that allows the contract to be dissolved if its has been breached.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Your incomplete knowledge of history is on display.

The Northern slaves were still slaves after the war.
Click to expand...

Until the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Re: Maryland Legislature:

s a result of the Union Army's heavy presence in the state and the suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln, several Maryland state legislators, as well as the mayor and police chief of Baltimore, who supported the secession, were arrested and imprisoned by Union authorities
Click to expand...

Gee, during a war. What a surprise.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Try learning some history. Comic book and movie knowledge is all you are displaying here.
Click to expand...

Actually, Dr. Kitten is ENTIRELY right. While there were signs that the Union government wanted to provoke the secessionists, they did so in a legal manner.

In any case, once they declared war!!!! ... well, you get the idea.
 
Tokorona said:
Actually, Dr. Kitten is ENTIRELY right. While there were signs that the Union government wanted to provoke the secessionists, they did so in a legal manner.

In any case, once they declared war!!!! ... well, you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Why was Virginia invaded?
 
mijopaalmc said:
I think that most frustrating part of the Montana Secretary of State's statement is that it seems to be an overly simplistic interpretation of a moderately complex problem. The problem is moderately complex, because, while acts of Congress are generally not considered contracts at least in part because they are valid regardless of the consent of the individuals upon whom they are enacted (if the proper legislative procedure has been followed), the Enabling Act of 1889 has been interpreted by the SCOTUS at least twice to be a contract (see: U.S. v. Rickert and State of Montana ex rel Haire v. Rice). However, in ruling that the Enabling Act was a contract, the SCOTUS has never seen it fit to dissolve the the contract because it has been breached. Thus, Montana's bid for "secession", while it does have some backing in case law in so far as the SCOTUS considers the Enabling Act a contract, is at best legally dubious because there is no precedent that allows the contract to be dissolved if its has been breached.
Click to expand...

Doublecheck your links mijo, I think those say the opposite of what you say they say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom