What degree(s) in Law do have, and where did you get them? Normally I wouldn’t ask, but anyone who claims to be a “premier” expert in Law should expect to have such a lofty claim questioned, don’t you think?
I’m still curious as to how SarahWitch is THE leading expert on American law. I mean, that’s a hell of a claim. I’d like to know at least part of that incredible resumé.
When is this true, and when it is not true?
It’s true in Hollywood.
It’s true in some situations but not in others. There is no one rule. I’m asking the biggest law expert there is.
Sorry. That you make a claim about “sovereignty” fails to make it a reality.
That no one but a handful of late 20th century cranks has pushed this idea that was never even addressed by the participants at the time fails to make your claim a reality.
I realize that you need to hold this idea dear, but the rest of the world is not required to humor you. (And if you persist in simply making unsupported claims, over and over, and failing to provide evidence, you will fail to persuade anyone else.)
If by “done here” you mean that you have no legitimate argument and will refuse to engage my observations, that is fine. I, however, have no need to refrain from pointing out your errors. The declarations of secession from multiple states identified slavery as the primary cause and the CSA vice-president, Alexander Stephens, made the same claim in his “Cornerstone Speech” that was widely re-printed and applauded across the South at the time of secession.
I gave you a potential out with my reference to Aristotle. One may look at different causes in different ways. However, if you choose to ignore that, I can always fall back on the clear statement that you are posting silliness. 
Since none of the colonies ever consented to or asserted their independence via popular vote, your argument fails on its face. The colonies were all created as royal charters from England or the United Kingdom, (depending on date).
On the one had, you want to claim that it was the recognition of the states’ “sovereignty” by European nations that placed the sovereignty into law, (as if recognition by outside agents can bestow sovereignty on a territory “in law”). However, you then keep repeating this claim that the sovereignty arose from the people when no such vote of the people ever occurred. The Declaration of Independence was cobbled together by a handful of men who were selected by the various legislatures of the various colonies and was never put to a popular vote. To the extent that the DoI was even accepted by the various colonies-turned-states, it occurred through legislatures, so your whole claim is based in nonsense.
You are not even consistent in your arguments. Was it European nations that made sovereignty law or was it a non-existent popular vote?
Are you completely ignorant about American history? Each colony officially became a separate sovereign nation, by law, via 1783 under the Treaty of Paris.
The Constitution, meanwhile, then asserted the vote of each state’s franchised citizens as supreme law, overruling their respective governments in order to form a new Union among the sovereign nation-states-- aka “We the People.”
The DoI simply laid the groundwork for this historical precedent, via presenting the ideology of “government by consent of the governed;” and then the Constitution asserted the citizen-voters as the supreme rulers of their respective nation-- not a select oligarchy as existed previously.
Are you completely ignorant about American history?
Are you completely ignorant about Constitutional Law?
Causes of secession are irrelevant, for sovereign nation-states; since the right is absolute and unconditional.
And I’ve already explained that each state is a sovereign nation, by law. They were *declared as such in 1776, and this was made official in 1783. Even the mainstream legal academia now admits this, and tries to weasel out by claiming that the Constitution made them into a single nation-- but they fail, since it doesn’t do so EXPRESSLY, as even their cited precedent * demonstrates… much to their chagrin.
So what part of this do you NOT understand?
When the court says. They are their own power.
The constitution was not ratified by “popular vote.”
Voting is an indication of consent. The fact that we’re not currently up in arms in open revolt is also an indication of consent. And all parliaments/congresses/legislatures are “middlemen.” That’s kind of the definition. We don’t practice direct democracy. (Some small towns in Maine or Vermont, maybe…)
There are problems with the system, but your extreme interpretations of state sovereignty are risible. No respectable political scientists hold such views; they aren’t taught in law schools; they only pop up on fringe web sites and badly-produced YouTube vids. (And open-discussion BBS fora.)
BWAHAHAHA you’re funny.
That bit about you being the premier expert on American law-Was that just your opinion, too?
You’re not.
Oh, yeah? What about the law school SarahWitch graduated from? Hm? Answer that, smart guy! :dubious:
Seven years, two months, three weeks, five days.
Naturally, it was contested by Great Britain, precluding official recognition until the dispute was settled.
Not officially under international law.
But they did after that, on September 30 of 1783, including Great Britain.
“US territory” simply means that the territory was held collectively by the individual nation-states, not by a SINGLE nation-state called “The US”; but once these nation-states recognized the territory as new] states, then they held the same status as the existing states, i.e. separate sovereign nation-states.
Just like the Treaty of Paris made the colonies into new nation-states.
What’s so difficult to understand about that?
Wow. The depth of your knowledge on American law is truly astounding. You’re saying courts can decide willy-nilly whenever they want that the Bill of Rights applies? If the courts says they don’t, then they don’t? There aren’t any, say, precedents in the law?
That fact that it didn’t, no matter how many times you repeat it without evidence?
That’s good, because like you I’m not trying to be.
The Treaty of Alliance don’t exist in your history?