Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: MissouriConservative

The Dred Scott decision was corrected by constitutional amendments. Of course if you had enough support to correct SCOTUS error by amendment, you wouldn’t need to secede.


336 posted on 07/19/2012 10:31:50 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies ]


To: donmeaker

My point is, SCOTUS decisions are the end all be all final word on ANY subject. I am of the belief that any state can secede at any time. It’s simply withdrawling from a contract. The federal government has violated that contract and hence, the other parties can depart said contract.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it expressly forbid the states from seceding, nowhere does it even remotely come close to hinting at secession as being forbidden. Hence, the beloved 10th amendment rides in and saves the day. But to some people, simple logic is as complex physics.


338 posted on 07/19/2012 11:48:03 PM PDT by MissouriConservative (Voting Anyone but Obama in 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

To: donmeaker
The Dred Scott decision was corrected by constitutional amendments. Of course if you had enough support to correct SCOTUS error by amendment, you wouldn’t need to secede.

Really, which Constitutional amendment is this?

339 posted on 07/20/2012 12:06:33 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson