Rosa Parks Statue Erected

CFM said:
Rosa Parks broke the law. The southern states that seceded didn't.
Click to expand...

You are correct. She broke city law. At the time, there we nothing preventing the city from passing such a law or from the bus driver performing the actions he did as the legal authority. States have the legal right to secede.
 
Last edited:
Adolf_Twitler said:
Try not to be an asshole!
Click to expand...


LOL

That is rich coming from a mindless twit like you.

You misspelled the word and since you were trying to school us on your knowledge (which is false by the way) you should have known how to spell Bumpkin, not bumkin.

So, what more can any learned person say beyond you are sorely lacking in any redeeming qualities.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
The Supreme Court weighed in on the secession issue in Texas v. White in 1869, declaring it unconstitutional. BUMPKIN ASS IDIOT!

Try to do your homework and study American History before you go running your mouth OK?
Click to expand...

Supreme Count has been wrong more than one. This was one of those times.

Now, kindly go fuck yourself. I know you can.

When the Confederate states seceded in 1861 and were then defeated in the Civil War, the argument is that they demonstrated that you can't secede from the Union. The 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White (Texas! Always Texas.) determined that the secession was never actually a real thing in the eyes of the federal government. The Confederate States of America wasn't an independent country any more than your house is its own country simply because you say it is. "The Constitution, in all its provisions," the justices wrote, "looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."
But this argument has a flaw: What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War?
Had the federal government lost the war, some accommodation would necessarily have been made to allow the states their independence. Sure, the government could have kept saying that Alabama and Georgia and Texas were still part of the U.S. in the way that nations insist on rights to disputed territories, but those states would have ignored that claim. There's no right to secede and no process to secede -- but if you secede and then beat the United States militarily, the dynamic changes.

It is my considered opinion that while there was "no right to secede" there was no formal prohibition either.
 
Last edited:
CFM said:
It was a city law.

BTW, she wasn't sitting in the front like the "history" books want to tell.
Click to expand...

She was sitting in the very first row of the "colored" section. When the rest of the bus filled up she was told to move, she did not. She was in the "colored" section as she had the legal right to be but was being forced to give up even that small bit of dignity.
 
ZILCHMONGER said:
Supreme Count has been wrong more than one. This was one of those times.

Now, kindly go fuck yourself. I know you can.

When the Confederate states seceded in 1861 and were then defeated in the Civil War, the argument is that they demonstrated that you can't secede from the Union. The 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White (Texas! Always Texas.) determined that the secession was never actually a real thing in the eyes of the federal government. The Confederate States of America wasn't an independent country any more than your house is its own country simply because you say it is. "The Constitution, in all its provisions," the justices wrote, "looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."
But this argument has a flaw: What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War?
Had the federal government lost the war, some accommodation would necessarily have been made to allow the states their independence. Sure, the government could have kept saying that Alabama and Georgia and Texas were still part of the U.S. in the way that nations insist on rights to disputed territories, but those states would have ignored that claim. There's no right to secede and no process to secede -- but if you secede and then beat the United States militarily, the dynamic changes.

It is my considered opinion that while there was "no right to secede" there was no formal prohibition either.
Click to expand...

Since our Constitution can be changed,if the South States had petitioned Congress,gone through the steps to Amend the constitution to make secession legal.They could have left.
But instead ,the South took part in the 1860 election.Didn't like the outcome.
Then thought they could just leave!
No fucking way!
 
ZILCHMONGER said:
Try to learn how to spell, its Bumpkin.

Where in the Constitution does it say once a state, always a state? There was no law against seceding from the Union. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution demanding that once you became a state you could not leave the Union.
Click to expand...

it's (Has an apostrophe you illiterate nimcompute) Try to learn English!
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I wouldn't show you shit. Look it the fuck up Fart face!
Click to expand...

You can't show it because it's not in the Constitution.

As usual, a lefty makes a claim then blames the other guy for not doing what he should be doing to support HIS claim. Lazy bastard.
 
ZILCHMONGER said:
She was sitting in the very first row of the "colored" section. When the rest of the bus filled up she was told to move, she did not. She was in the "colored" section as she had the legal right to be but was being forced to give up even that small bit of dignity.
Click to expand...

The bus driver has the authority to ask her to move based on the segregation laws of the city. She refused.
 
ZILCHMONGER said:
LOL

That is rich coming from a mindless twit like you.

You misspelled the word and since you were trying to school us on your knowledge (which is false by the way) you should have known how to spell Bumpkin, not bumkin.

So, what more can any learned person say beyond you are sorely lacking in any redeeming qualities.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that type of thing with lefties like AT. Claim to be intellectually superior then misspell simple words.
 
jimmymccready said:
It's enjoyable watching Adolph_Twittler flog CFM and the other losers across the Board.
Click to expand...

You mean like when he makes a claim, fails to back it up, then expects someone else to provide evidence that doesn't exist to support what HE said?

The only one he's flogging is himself. The sad part is the incel thinks switching from his left hand to his right hand means he got a different piece of pussy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top