DiogenesLamp: "Except when a nation specifically says people have a right to leave without having to go through "revolution" or "rebellion."
When the nation says you have a right to leave, it is not "rebellion" to exercise the right the nation says you have."
Of course, no Founding document ever said what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend they said.
In fact, Founders were always careful to separate events of legal necessity (i.e., 1776) from those by mutual consent, at pleasure (i.e, 1788).
OIFVeteran to DiogenesLamp: "The founders never claimed they seceded from the British empire they knew they were rebelling."
DiogenesLamp: "The laws of Britain had no provision whatsoever to allow for subjects to throw off their allegiance to the King. Allegiance was "perpetual."
However, the founding charter of this nation expressly articulates that the right to independence is a natural right given by God, and that all people possess the right to "dissolve the political bonds joining them with another."
So you see, that's the difference between British Law and American Law.
Our law recognizes a right to have independence, therefore exercising this right is not rebellion.
It is consistent with our own founding principle."
This point is at the core of DiogenesLamp's Big Lie -- his claim that any Founder ever supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
The truth is that "at pleasure" was always restricted by mutual consent and "right of secession" was always limited to necessity from "a long train of abuses and usurpations".
But in 1860 there was neither mutual consent nor necessity when Fire Eaters began to declare their unilateral secession at pleasure.
OIFVeteran to DiogenesLamp: "The founders even stated to the world that governments shouldn’t be changed for any old reason."
DiogenesLamp: "Operative word here being "should."
"Should" is in the eye of the beholder. Do you only do those things you "should" do, or do you ever do things you shouldn't do, but do so because that is what you want to do?
Do you have a right?
If so, whether or not you should exercise that right is up to you, isn't it?"
And so we see that DiogenesLamp's Big Lie here is built on his own flipping of the term "should not"!
So "should not" means, "yes you can" in DiogenesLamp's la-la-land.
But the real truth is that "should" or "should not" has nothing to do with the right identified by our Founders in 1776.
Rather, they said, in effect, that a "right of secession" comes from "a long train of abuses and usurpations".
No such train existed in 1860.
- "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."