[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
yep. it was legal for a state to secede.
Again, nope.
and we are all pretty sharp cookies. pops is about as successful as grand dad as the vice president of sales and marketing for an international marketing firm. i’m on the way. I graduate college in december, i’ve been president of my school’s American Marketing Association going on three years now and was elected Vice President of communications before that. I’ve also participated in what Forbes has rated the highest paying business internship available where i worked 80 hrs per week for three and a half months. Have you ever done that? i doubt it.
I once took a marketing class. It was intellectually challenging. End sarcasm.
And you are president of your school’s marketing club? My God, man - is there a statue of you on campus yet?
It does, however, sound like 2/3 of the above listed are sharp cookies.
any ways, i’m in prime position to negotiate my way in to a sweet job on the higher end of the entry level pay scale and have a heck of a network to boot. I am lucky to have a successful family for support though, you are right.
you can brush everything i just told you off if you like the idea of me being coddled though. i understand that viewing the situation accurately would negate your pathetic ammo.
You already carry your scarlet letter around - and after showing your ass in other threads, it doesn’t do much to act proud about it now.
"A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states – Virginia and New York – MADE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, A RIGHT CLAIMED BY ONE IS CLAIMED BY ALL.
The procedure of the articles of ratification of the Constitution in Virginia is described in depth, IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, in “The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution,” a wonderful work in progress from the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, volume X, p.1512 and after."
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm
Of course - well, maybe they don’t cover this in marketing - but an internet source doesn’t win or lose a debate.
And further to the point your internet site suggested - what a state reserves in its state constitution has to pass muster under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution the state just ratified. If there is a conflict between the two, the state provision yields.
And since the Supremacy Clause can’t be understood as permitting states to leave the Union once joined, any state laws in conflict lose.
As for states being able to reclaim lost powers, sure they can - it’s called a constitutional convention.
This topic isn’t worth yanking the thread off course for, but your puny statement need not go unaddressed.
I can find more sources if you’d like. Or you could do your own research.
Of course, because I haven’t done much on this topic at all. [/quote]
you can continue to brush anything you’d like off. what you think really doesn’t mean a thing. i live a better life than you, i’m on my way to being what i want to be and your opinion is your own. you can have it but it doesn’t bother me. sorry.
apparently you haven’t done much research. it’s historical fact. illegality of secession wasn’t made in to a law until after the civil war. The 14th amendment discusses it directly, and it wasn’t entered until after the Union won and decided to end all chance of losing part of the nation again. They made a law where there wasn’t one.
study up and try to put your bitterness aside. it bothers you more than me and by taking a thread off topic to bring up another thread you didn’t like shows that you are wearing your bitterness on your sleeve.
If my scarlet letter is symbolic of having a successful family, being successful myself in virtually all endeavours so far and continuing to so, i’ll proudly wear it. there is no shame if that is what you are contending.
