LOL! I've posted the constitutional clause that prevents a state from being denied representation in the Senate. In your tortured reasoning it is a LIVING Constitution where what's written doesn't mean squat.
You wrote in 417, And I will repeat, since you seem to be a little slow today, if the other states, acting in the capacity as sovereign entities, boot another state out of the Union then that body of land is no longer a state. No longer bound by the Constitution. No longer protected by it. It has no right to representation, so the other states are depriving it of nothing.
You and 12 others have an agreement that YOU may not be denied a seat at that table, unless YOU decide not to show up. But in the liberal world of Non-Sequitur, if the other 12 lock the door, and hold you at bay with guns, you have not been denied a seat. In my world, the 12 have violated the agreement, but you claim they have abided by their agreement.
Yet if you leave voluntarily, tell them you're leaving and not coming back, the others track you down at gunpoint, slaughter your familily, burn your home, destroy your crops, steal all your possessions, and drag you back to the table, that's perfectly ok?
Your words proves who's slow and liberal, a believer in a 'living' Constitution, and it's not me.
Ah now who is the living, breathing Constitution proponent here? Some one who takes a clause relating to amending the constitution and somehow sees it as preventing unilateral expulsion? Some one who takes a clause that says that a state cannot be denied equal sufferage in the senate and somehow sees it as reading denied any sufferage? Breath in...breath out. You're quite imaginative.
When Luis posts the clause in Article I, Section 10 forbidding states from entering into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation you pooh-pooh him by stating that the states had unilaterally seceded and were no longer bound by any Constitutional restrictions. Well, if a state is unilaterally expelled then it is no longer entitled to any Constitutional protections, like representation in congress or anything else. So once again please point out where the Constitution prevents that?
You and 12 others have an agreement that YOU may not be denied a seat at that table, unless YOU decide not to show up. But in the liberal world of Non-Sequitur, if the other 12 lock the door, and hold you at bay with guns, you have not been denied a seat. In my world, the 12 have violated the agreement, but you claim they have abided by their agreement.
And quite an imaginative world it is that you live in. In your world while the 12 are at the table you can walk out, nail the door shut, steal the furniture, and fire a few shots at them. In your world unilateral action is OK when it preserves what your imagination identifies as your rights and is absolutely wrong if it might be something that you don't like. It would be OK for Virginia to unilaterally secede and cut off Maryland from access to the sea, or for Georgia to secede and refuse to abide by anti-slavery treaties, of for Mississippi to secede and abdicate any responsibility for the national debt. But somehow it would not be OK for the other states to expel South Carolina. And while the Constitution is silent on both issues, somehow you find one to be a protected right and not the other. The Constitution apparently means whatever you want it to, and that's as living and breathing as they come.
Your words proves who's slow and liberal, a believer in a 'living' Constitution, and it's not me.
Well I certainly wouldn't expect you to admit it.