Mr Talbert.... I wonder if Mr. Morrison thinks that the SCOTCS (Supreme Court Of The Confederate States) would have arrived at the same conclusion as his SCOTUS? What is interesting is that Mr. Morrison, and other Yankees wish to use an opinion made by a SCOTUS that could be nothing but biased in such case. .... Texas v White, Chase states that.... The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725]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? The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. Again, the SCOTUS is limited to opinions on Constitutional law, I.E. the U.S. CONstitution: As we see here, the SCOTUS is basing an opinion, deriving NOT from enumerated in the U.S. CONstitution, but forbidden to the United States, (The States in union collectively) under the tenth amendment.to the U.S. CONstitution, but rather reserved to each individual State. In a marriage, (A CONTRACT BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN) as defined in Johnsons Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, The words...(TILL DEATH DO YOU PART are stated, yet there is the option of divorce under the law: WHY? because without the ability to separate, there exists absolute despotism/TYRANNY. Even though such words are stated...Till Death do You Part it is only the hope and intention of all that such exist, but it is not meant to bind by force of tyranny. Chase states.... 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. Chase has just stated that the Articles were found to be inadequate, therefore a new CONstitution was ordained to make a more perfect union. Mr Chase is faced with the dilemma: Was the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution simply an amendment to the Articles to make the union More Perfect? Or was the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution a new CONstitution established to make A more perfect union? If it was an amendment to the Articles, then it remains a compact between the States, hence under International law.... Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty. If it is indeed a new CONstitution, then the PERPETUAL does NOT apply unless it is enumerated in the new document/treaty/compact/charter. csagov.org/
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:03:49 +0000