I've shown legal writings, not just told someone they were wrong and expected them to take my word for it.
I've already mentioned I was more than willing to wait until the discussion became more convenient for you.
-----
Jeeze when I started this hip hooray to a pro 2nd amendment individual rights article I hoped against hope that it wouldnt break down into a federalism v states rights argument. This is deja vue all over again for me because I've posted pro-gun articles before and it always seems to happen. But I'll bite.
Look, I think the finding of the Court is wonderful, even if it is rather misguided. You're the one who jumped in with the 'Notice the word perpetual? That means forever.' post.
Don't rant at me just because I replied.
-----
As I said up the thread, I am no legal scholar but when a union goes from perpetual union to a more perfect union, more perfect union doesn't negate perpetual union. One can have both. Or more importantly one can perfect a perpetual union but a perfect union doesn't need to be perpetuated.
That's like saying your obligated to every detail of every contract you ever signed even if that contract was terminated.
I'm no legal scholar either, but I know the Law doesn't work that way.
The Articles ended, and the word 'perpetual' no longer applies.
-----
The framers indended to perfect a perpetual union
No, they attempted to create a 'more perfect' Union to ensure the happiness of the People. They had no intention of creating a suicide pact.
I've posted information from an acknowledged legal document written by George Tucker, a man of such renown that is considered to be America's Blackstone. He was appointed to a federal judicial position by Madison himself.
Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII
---
It was not my intention to ruin your thread, and if you have no desire to discuss the subject of States rights, that's fine.
I will not, however, simply 'take you word' for any assertions you might make. "You're wrong because I say so" is a pitiful substitute for a rational debate.
You've got me beat there. I don't have the refs you have because I didn't pick this fight over federalism v states rights(that was between you and Wonder Warthog). In fact I apologize for stepping in the middle. Listen, I've had this battle on the fly with states rights advocates before. I don't expect you to take my word for it but I have in the past found legal jurisprudence that backs up that the transition from perpetual union to more perfect union supports that states gave up their right to cede from the union. But I'd like to add that the argument that the framers didnt expect, want, or intend that the constitution wasn't a permanent contract defies all logic. They were for the second time trying to form a nation. Countries, and nations are never known for their impermanent goals. I don't think the framers where trying to buck that. Quite the opposite. They were trying to form a perfect perpetual union so much that they threw in ever possible caveat to resolve our differences EXCECT the caveat that the states could just flat out leave. The only thing close to it was calling a constitutional convention whereby I suppose states could be allowed to leave.
It would seem to me that since secession is not denied to the states, it is reserved through the 10th Amendment. It doesn’t seem like there’s much to argue about there.