Maybe it is you who needs to go back and re-read the thread. Mary Todd Lincoln's favorite color has as much to do with the legality of secession as does Article IV, section 1. Article IV, section 1 puts no limitations on the acts of a state as you have claimed repeatedly. Your ability to read for yourself and use your imagination has apparently failed you once more.
The words of the Constitution is all I need.
To do what, be a productive member of an anarchy? I'm sure the Mass supreme court thought the words of the Mass Constitution was all they needed to delcare gay marriage an inalienable right. Do you not get that everyone abiding by their own interpretation of the constitution is a call for chaos?
I'm not the one that has to quote this guy or that guy to support lies, I can just quote the Constitution.
So then, your lies are so outrageous that you cannot even corroborate them using the lunatics who brought the war in the first place?
If it's documentation when you post it, why isn't it when I post it?
It's 'documentation' that does not support what you are saying. Much like Article IV, Section 1, you post a link that does not say what you then insist repeatedly it does. It's sad, really, when someone who claims all they need is a personal reading of the Constitution has proven so oft that they cannot read for comprehension and understanding.
It's much more accurate to read the Constitution for yourself
anarchy
and that way you don't end up going by precedent,
anarchy
but by what each person gets from the words of the Constitution.
anarchy
If everyone went by their own mind,
anarchy
then we wouldn't be in the shape we're in today where the Constitution is not followed for the most part.
We'd be living in the paradise of an anarchy.
I don't though.
anarchist.
To be a Lincoln man, and do what Lincoln wanted to do in the face of the Constitution, he'd have to be a bit of an anarchist, now wouldn't he?
Are you denying you used the term "freak"?
Mary Todd Lincoln's favorite color has as much to do with the legality of secession as does Article IV, section 1. Article IV, section 1 puts no limitations on the acts of a state as you have claimed repeatedly. Your ability to read for yourself and use your imagination has apparently failed you once more.
Article IV, Section 1 says that Congress may prescribe laws to set the manner in which states prove their acts and secession is an act.
To do what, be a productive member of an anarchy? I'm sure the Mass supreme court thought the words of the Mass Constitution was all they needed to delcare gay marriage an inalienable right. Do you not get that everyone abiding by their own interpretation of the constitution is a call for chaos?>/i>
Judges have legal say but the citizens should think for themselves and when a judge goes against a citizen's judgment then that citizen should vote for someone who will appoint better judges. This system would work much better tyhan putting all faith in judges.
So then, your lies are so outrageous that you cannot even corroborate them using the lunatics who brought the war in the first place?
What lie? I've told no lie.
It's 'documentation' that does not support what you are saying. Much like Article IV, Section 1, you post a link that does not say what you then insist repeatedly it does. It's sad, really, when someone who claims all they need is a personal reading of the Constitution has proven so oft that they cannot read for comprehension and understanding.
What link are you talking about? My Texas link showed exactly what I said was true, that the conventioners were thugs. My Illinois link showed that Illinois did indeed petition Congress before carrying out an act. My Davis link indeed showed him in a dress (just firing you up again, I know it wasn't the right dress...lol...).
anarchy and that way you don't end up going by precedent, anarchy but by what each person gets from the words of the Constitution. anarchy If everyone went by their own mind, anarchy then we wouldn't be in the shape we're in today where the Constitution is not followed for the most part. We'd be living in the paradise of an anarchy. I don't though. anarchist.
Nope, judges have legal say.