Quote:
Originally Posted by UofM-TKE
I wrote my comment to express my belief in self determination for all people, even Southerners if they chose to exercise it, and the logical problems to which that those who deny self determination must resort. Notice that I do not refer to any legal problems, since we know that any great evil done by a government is always legal to that government and its courts.
Since you took some time to declare me wrong and since your reply is a good example of these problems, I will respond.
Considering the Colonies - America, Great Britain and South Carolina in particular. After we abstract away the redundant, we get this.
SC can leave GB but SC cannot leave A because we are A. This is the definition of Special Pleading i.e. we can do it to them, but you can not do it to us, because we are special.
Except in the case of Virginia and its western counties. V can leave GB but V can not leave A because we are A, except that the western counties of V can leave V because they like A. Twice Special Pleading.
|
No, it's not special pleading, it's a different situation to begin with. It's different because SC did not have the same relation to the UK as it did/does to the US. The political relationships were different at the outset.
It's also not the same because SC did not secede from the UK, it revolted. There is a difference between the two. If you'll note,
Texas v White pretty much says that states can't secede and that the only way they can sever ties with the Union is with the consent of the other states or revolution. By that Supreme Court holding, it would appear that SC
could leave the Union exactly the way it left the UK -- not by secession but by revolution.
I see what you're saying in terms of logical problems and philosophical considerations. But when you term it as "rights," I don't think it's surprising for a response to be framed from a legal perspective.
Threaded Mode
