Replies

The Pesident of Cngress referred to in the AoC would be the equivalent to the Speaker of the House under US Constitution. AoC Article IX details the powers of Congress of the United States. There were no Executive powers enumerated under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

I never said there were executive powers. I said there were 'Presidents' under the AofC. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was the Federal Government in total. It's President was the head of the entire Federal Government, not just a part of it. The AofC did not give the Federal Government anywhere as much power as the Constitution does, so no, a President under the AoC did not have the same power that a President under the Constitution does. No one said any different. Apparently you're just twisting around trying to come up with another angle for your silly BS. I said there were 'Presidents' under the Articles of Confederation, and I was correct. You didn't even know that, which doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't really understand the US constitution or the seperation of powers enumerated therein.

LOL - Between the two of us, I'm the only one that has displayed ANY understanding of the US Constitution and the seperation of powers. Your repeated ignorance on the subject is astounding.

Your failure to recognize the role of the Court to ajudicate disputes between the states leads you (and others) to make statements like this one.

LOL - The States that seceded had no grievance with anyone regarding the issue of secession that would necessitate (or even justify) their approaching the Court. Once they had seceded, if the States that remained in the union objected to it, they could have filed a grievance. They were the only party involved that could, would, or should. As usual, you display a complete ignorance of the subject.

A group of midgits get together, and They decide they are tall. Does that mean the rest of us have to believe them?

LOL - Too bad your analogy isn't analogous. The States that seceded had no legal grievance regarding secession with which to even approach the Court. I notice you can't refute that statement. Your lack of understanding on how the Supreme Court works is really starting to make you look like a 'midgit', a "mental midgit".