Actually, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the "law of the land," not some regurgitated "old tired statement over and over."
"Learn to read you moron."
I have already cited to you that the Constitution specifically delgates [sic] the power of Commander-in-Chief to the Executive. And that the Tenth Amendment specifically prohibits the States from powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
So what? It's irrelevant to the issue of State secession.
The Rebel democrat controlled States had no Constitionally [sic] legal right to usurp power that the Constitition [sic] gave to the United States.
True - but the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, and therefore there was no violation of constitutional law.
"Learn to read you moron."
;>)
You really have said nothing. You dont even make a point.
Everything is a one-liner with you.
I dont suppose you would like to explain how the 9th or 10th Amendment support a right to secession?
The Tenth Amendment clearly supports my argument that the States were prohibited from secession because it prohibited the States from usurping the powers specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution such as is the case of the Article II.
[Who is John Galt?]but the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, and therefore there was no violation of constitutional law.
TheBigIf, the Gentleman has went to extreme lengths to show the error of your ways. He has done so with no thanks from you. There was a vote regarding State Secession, for your information. The date was March 2, 1861, and it was decided in the negative. Negative for you that is. The vote count was 28 nays to 18 yeas :
"Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme law of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."