Which states seceded, then? As far as I know, the states that seceded were part of the United States. The case cited demonstrates that their secession violated the law.
EDIT:
Then you should move to a different country. Because in this country, the Constitution is the Law of the Land, and the Supreme Court decides what is and isn’t Constitutional.
.
Wrong pieces still, back to the [del]game[/del] drawing table 
Appeals to authority are fallacies only when they are pointing at experts in unrelated fields.
And really, I still have to see the historians and teachers I looked at as being wildly popular, they are well known, but in the internet the sad reality is that ignorant sources (such as the ones supporting the confederacy and Sovereign Citizens) are more prevalent.
So, a forfeit (as you refused to point at your “renown” sources) it is from your part.
And you are bad at chess too.
They settled out of court.
That doesn’t follow; I could punch a co-worker if I were so inclined, that doesn’t mean I have the right to do so. The Articles specified that the union between the states was perpetual, which is to say, the states attempted to create a union that could not be unilaterally seceded from.
He’s not addressing precisely what I asked, but sure.
Can you cite this claim from the legal community? The idea of the US consisting sovereign states which delegate limited, enumerated powers to the federal government is quite mainstream. The concept is called “dual sovereignty”; states are sovereign except over matters in which that sovereignty has been delegated to the federal government.
Furthermore, the Constitution could be legally dissolved in exactly the same way the Articles of Confederation were: via a constitutional convention.
Returning to the question at hand: if you accept that states can “give away” portions of their sovereignty (for example, coining money), does it not follow that unilateral secession is also something that could be given up?
Do you recognize the authority of the SCOTUS?
You need to learn history, before teaching it.
It certainly was; the citizen-voters of each state voted in state conventions to overrule their government and establish the Constitution… or not; some didn’t at first, but did later.
if the voters have the power to overrule their government directly by popular vote.
That’s just silly.
Which is why freedom requires true democracy, wherein the People have final authority over them by popular vote-- not Totalitarian democracy, which is an oxymoron… again, like “Crony Capitalism,” which is the inevitable result of Totalitarian Democracy.
Again, the Constutitution was an act of direct democracy. It’s not a question of whether it’s practiced, but simply the power to do so as final authority.
*There are problems with the system, but your extreme interpretations of state sovereignty are risible.
*
I never mentioned anything about “state sovereignty.” I’m talking about the international sovereignty of sovereign nation-states, as exists by law.
Now you’re appealing to authority and popularity, as well as ad hominem regarding what you consider “respectable.”
But all you’ve stated are fallacies and falsehoods, so it’s par for the course.
Would you mind providing a link or two to cites that talk about the individual states of our country being sovereign nation-states?
You expect too much.
Or against the facts, which you are, and thus conceding the facts as I have stated them.
Thus your appeal to popularity, as I mentioned. Thanks for admitting it.
I already proved the Confederacy’s argument based on facts, and I expressly stated that the Sovereign Citizens were wrong.
So the problem seems to be that you’re illiterate.
*So, a forfeit (as you refused to point at your “renown” sources) it is from your part.
*
I already stated my sources in prior posts. But if you deny that each state is a sovereign nation-state by law, then you’ll have to explain your own sources, since I’m far more familiar with the laws and facts than you are; and they don’t say what you think they say.
The Declaration of Independence declares each colony in the United Colonies to be a separate nation-state, unto itself-- it does not declare the UC a single nation-state, as Lincoln claimed.
You may think that this is what they did-- or that it happened later; I’m not sure your particular derivation of national authority to the federal government, but regardless it’s 100% false, as I’ve proved: i.e. the Articles of Confederation expressly retained each state’s sovereignty, freedom and independence, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly recognized them, and the Constitution never expressly *altered *them in any way.
So wherever you’re deriving your argument that the USA is a single sovereign nation-state, it’s faulty; rather, each state remained a sovereign nation-state unto itself, under the final authority of its respective People.
Charlatans often ignorantly construe federal authority over state governments, as evidencing single-nation status; however this naturally* ignores* the national authority of each state’s respective People, which is the body clearly named in the Constitution’s Preamble as the authority which declares and establishes the Constitution, and therefore is the sovereign power over the state in question.
However, such charlatans also mistakenly conflate the phrase “The People” to refer to the Peoples of all the states collectively as a single aggregate; however this is also false, even for the obvious reason that there is no higher authority than a nation-state, which was the status of the individual states.
Ergo, each state is a separate sovereign nation-state, and its respective People-- i.e. citizen-voters-- is the final authority therein.
Wrong again:
“Territories of the United States are sub-national administrative divisions directly overseen by the United States (U.S.) federal government. Unlike U.S. states and Indian tribes that have sovereignty alongside the federal government, only one territory has sovereignty. The territories are classified by whether they are “incorporated” (i.e., part of the U.S. proper) and whether they have an “organized” government through an Organic Act passed by the U.S. Congress.[2]”
:dubious:
I thought they already were nation-states as ratified by their popular assemblies, in your formulation. By making reference to the Treaty of Paris (which is an agreement to recognize US sovereignty only by the British crown, not any other sovereign nations), you undercut the basis for your own argument.
You are asserting mutually exclusive interpretations as the basis for your nonsense.
Besides, as has been mentioned by many others in this thread already, the individual states partially gave up their sovereignty in order to form a national, federal government when they ratified the US Constitution.
What’s so difficult to understand about that?
Debunked already by others *, and read it again, I did not said either that I made an argument of popularity. So you are not even wrong.
(* **Fuji **was just the last one who did so too in the previous post. )
“Legal” is overrated.
Apartheid was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Colonialism was legal. Legality is a matter of power, not justice.
It is much better to be right and good than than to be “Legal.”
A state convention is not a “popular vote,” but a delegated vote. The people of various localities elected representatives to attend the conventions.
I confess, I was ignorant, as I had thought the Constitution had been ratified by the legislatures of the various states, not by conventions. So, yes, I was wrong. But I was also right: the Constitution was not ratified by “popular vote.”
Well, I admit that you have shown that you know a great deal. However, others have shown that much of what you know is invalid or incorrect.
In true learning comes the realization of how vastly much more one does not know. – me (or whoever originally said something like that, whom I have forgotten about)
You’re addressing me. Not them. Try to keep up with you you’re talking to.
Yes, you did. You just didn’t admit it.
You can run, but you can’t hide.
Confession is good for the soul; but you’re still ignorant. The question is whether you choose to stay way when presented with the truth, since that by definition would make you a* fool.*
A delegated popular vote is still a popular vote, since it bypassed the legislature. The Conventions simply kept things organized.
Likewise, the Constitution didn’t unite the states as a single nation-state-- which is the issue regarding secession, regardless of how it was ratified.
SarahWitch, your argument does not account for the Subrogation of Sovergnity of 1781 via the Confederation Congress. How do you explain this?
I am still waiting for you to disclose your bona fides.
I should point out that SarahWitch has been posting the same, entirely incorrect stuff for at least four years. She’s been given the same factual information that Dopers are posting here. It is unlikely that she will suddenly snap out of her delusions.
Except that’s subjective, while the law is a bright line of universal concurrence when it’s made.
So you’re saying that the states are not only sovereign nation-states by law, but that you don’t care.
Good enough for me.