If the US Constitution is not a "Contract," then it is nothing, and I don't believe for a second it's "nothing."
Sorry, BloJo - you forgot to mention which specific clause of the constitutional "contract" was 'impaired' by State secession. The clause prohibiting State secession? Gosh, I can't find one (and neither can you, obviously). In fact, your 'contract clause' claim is absolutely idiotic. You would have us believe that a contract between a business and an employee, for example, that nowhere prohibits the employee's 'unilateral' resignation, but which requires the submittal of time sheets every week, somehow prohibits the employee from ever quitting, because his resignation would 'impair' the submittal of time sheets.
You're a freaking moron.
Sorry, pal, but your argument is dead. It's been blown apart by the US Constitution.
More sucking sounds from BloJo, as what passes for his 'argument' goes down the toilet. Speaking of which:
BJ (Post #2233): Sorry pal, but all you're doing here is "firing blanks" or worse, misfiring "spent cartridges," because NONE of these quotes refer to a right of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union." Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 [including James Madison in 1789, & Thomas Jefferson in 1791] are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."
Gosh, BloJo - Article I, section 10, clause 1 doesn't even mention "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," so it's inapplicable under your own requirements. Come on, BloJo, post some documentation that actually refers to the unconstitutionality of "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," from the "period [of] ratification in 1788."
Can't do it? You mean you pulled those arbitrary restrictions out of your @ss, and were too stupid to make up restrictions that you could meet yourself? That's absolutely sweet! You're as dumb as a stump!
Now, before we give it a respectful burial, perhaps you'd appreciate a brief post-mortum? Well, here's what you did wrong...
What I 'did wrong' was expect you to provide a rational argument based on historical documentation. Got any documentation written by "the Founders" from the "period [of] ratification in 1788" suggesting that your 'contract clause' prohibited State secession? Of course not...
First, you enterred the battle carrying a false flag of "John Galt." Well, I've known "John Galt" for many years, and you're not him. You're not a "John Galt," you're a Johnny Reb, indeed your arguments are nothing but Johnny-one-note, same claims over & over...
As I have noted in numerous posts, BloJo, "John Galt" is a different Freeper. You're the one flying the "false flag," you idiot, by repeatedly stating something you know to be untrue.
Actually, you're not an idiot - you would make an idiot look like a brain surgeon.
Second, you have only one argument, and no matter how many different ways you tried to say it, it all comes down to the same thing:
Since the US Constitution does not expressly forbid secession, Southern declarations of secession in 1860 & '61 were legal...
LOL! Funny how you can not disprove that argument, BloJo, given the obvious high regard in which you hold yourself...
;>)
and everything which happened afterwards... is irrelevant to questions about the moral rights & wrongs of the Civil War.
Liar.
I have not posted on this thread anything about "the moral rights & wrongs of the Civil War," and I invite you to prove differently, by quoting my posts. In fact, you're a liar, and you will post anything, including blatant lies, in your desperate attempts to support your idiotic claims.
Obviously, both your premise and conclusions are wrong.
Actually, that applies to you.
Third, having marched into battle under a false flag, with only one round of ammunition, quickly expended, then you tried to replace real fire-power with ever louder "Yeeeee Haaaaaws!"
Thanks for proving, once again, that compared to you, a complete idiot is intelligent.
But after you crossed over the fence at the Emmitsburg Road, you were all alone. By this time your fellow rebs realized the battle was lost, and they were heading home. But you kept coming, out of ammunition, yelling "Yeeeee Haaaaaaaw!" all by yourself...
Better have your doc check your meds, BloJo - you're living in a complete fantasy land, and one can only hope that you're already under a physician's care.
So now your argument is just a rotting corpse on the battlefield. How about if we give it a respectful burial, and then go home, pal?
How about you post some historical documentation "from the period [of] ratification in 1788," supporting your claim that the 'contracts clause' prohibits State secession? After all, BloJo, you told us that documentation "from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 [including James Madison's remarks in 1789, & Thomas Jefferson's comments in 1791] "are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' 'original intent.' " Ante up, you sack of manure.
Oh, and have a nice day in your little fantasy world...
;>)
All of it.
Your argument is dead, pal. It's been blown to pieces by the US Constitution. And no amount of your mouth-to-mouth "Yeeeee Haaaaaw" resusitation can breathe new life into it.
Now it's really starting to stink. So burry it. Then go home. Free your slaves, reb! ;-)