I guess I haven't exactly gone out of my way to ingratiate myself with you.
Your comment brings to mind what retired Judge William J. Palmer (Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County) wrote: “Behind every decision of the Supreme Court, either supporting or repudiating it, still stands the Constitution of the United States, pronouncing what its makers intended it to pronounce, and doing so in the clarity of its own words for each citizen to read for himself.”
You might read the Constitution again, for the first time: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Yes. This business of pretending it means what or "elites" say, when what they say clearly contradicts the plain language of the document, is one of the reasons why we fight the liberals.
They make sh*t up, and we don' go along with it because it is clearly made up nonsense.
Penumbra anyone?
Sucking up to me would not have changed my opinion of you.
You might read the Constitution again, for the first time
I might suggest the same to you.
Your comment brings to mind what retired Judge William J. Palmer (Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County) wrote...
Your contempt for the judiciary only extends to the Federal courts? Is that what you're saying?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And your point is? It is clear from a reading of the Constitution that the makers intent was that the power to admit states was reserved to the United States, and the power to approve any change in their status once admitted was also a power reserved to the United States as well. That would include leaving. Or so Chief Justice Chase ruled in the Texas v. White decision.