Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
He's not even that stealthy anymore. He openly advocates tyranny over liberty. I don't know how he avoids the ban hammer. If I was a mod I'd kick his ass off this board and send him packing back to DU.
His one function in life is degrade anything southern heritage, or southern in general.
He must have got Ned Beattyed on a canoe trip and now his mission in life is to hate all Southerners and all things Southern.
The cool part is we hate him and his legion of losers just as much.
LOL...That would explain a lot of his comments!!!!!
It is just as silent on secession. Both are viable if the citizens have the stones, federal boot lickers to hinder real Patriots not withstanding.
So drop the Lost Cause cliches and answer the question. Can the states expel another state against its will? If not, why not?
Show me first any founding document, anywhere, which states, suggests, or even implies your argument that any State or group of States has any such Sovereignty, over the associations of any other State, in the first place.
Then, we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such actions.
Until you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, you might as well be arguing that the Constitution "does not forbid" Virginia and Alabama from expelling the Falklands from the British Empire. Or expelling Saskatchewan from Canada.
Well, guess what? The Constitution does not mention such a possibility, because the Founders never imagined that America would ever breed offspring stupid enough to believe such drivel.
That is, until you came along.
Until that time, you're just arguing that the Constitution "does not forbid" Virginia and Alabama from expelling the Falklands from the British Empire.
Which is patently idiotic. Nobody (except for a Compulsive Unionist hopelessly grasping at imaginary straws) ever imagined that they had the Sovereignty over another State to do so.
Re: NS #784; see my #785.
That shouldn't be a precondition for identifying where the Constitution forbids states expelling other states against their will. Unless your point is that such a prohibition is implied. Is that what you are saying?
Until you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, you might as well be arguing that the Constitution "does not forbid" Virginia and Alabama from expelling the Falklands from the British Empire. Or expelling Saskatchewan from Canada.
Idiotic analogies are very much a Southron trait. And the more desperate your position, the more moronic they become - I've seen Lost Causers compare the Constitution with the Publisher's Clearing House contest before. Your analogy isn't quite that asinine but your close. Obviously the Falklands and Saskatchewan can't be touched because neither one is governed by the Constitution. In case you weren't aware of that.
The Constitution governs what states can and cannot do. If it is not forbidden by the Constitution or reserved for the federal government then the states can do it. So where does the Constitution prevent states from expelling another state from the Union against it's will or preserve that power to the federal government? Answer that and you win.
Well, guess what? The Constitution does not mention such a possibility, because the Founders never imagined that America would ever breed offspring stupid enough to believe such drivel.
Well I've seen some pretty stupid drivel coming from what I assume are the offspring of Americans on the Lost Cause side of the debate so I think the founders must have been optimistic.
So, "for the umpteenth time", here's the deal: At such time as you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, then we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such an action.
But that's not how the Constitution works, as you would know if you bothered to read it. The powers of the federal government are delegated. If those powers are not delegated or prohibited then they're reserved to the states. That's the whole meaning behind the 10th Amendment. For you to be right it would have to be the opposite - powers are delegated to the states and if not delegated the it's prohibited. Which is fine if that's what you choose to believe. And people accuse me of being big government. I've obviously got nothing on you.
Which is patently idiotic. Nobody (except for a Compulsive Unionist hopelessly grasping at imaginary straws) ever imagined that they had the Sovereignty over another State to do so.
So are you saying the other state has sovereignty over all? That one state can force all the others to accept them regardless of how they feel? How idiotic is that?
Sorry, the States preceded the Constitution.
Ergo, we must first determine whether or not any State does have any Sovereignty over another State's associations, before we can discuss whether or not the Constitution formed by those States thence governs any such exercise of purported Sovereignty.
Ergo, once again, here's the deal: At such time as you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, then we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such an action.
I'm waaaaaaaiting....
{{{crickets chirping}}}
Couldn't take your own advice and ignore me, huh? Well now you've done it! You've prevented my head from exploding and all the Lost Cause Brigade has to live with that disappointment. I hope you're happy.
Well while you're waaaaaaaiting then why not use the time and read the Constitution? You've obviously never done that before.
Ergo, we must first determine whether or not any State does have any Sovereignty over another State's associations, before we can discuss whether or not the Constitution formed by those States thence governs any such exercise of purported Sovereignty.
Well, the Articles of Confederation required that all states approve the admission of a new state. The Constitution requires that only a majority of states approve as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. Wouldn't that mean that the states have sovereignty over another state's association since they have to approve their admission to begin with? New states exist only at the approval of existing states. So then if the states can admit them then why can't they expel them? What prevents that?
Nope.
No State is exercising Sovereignty over any other State wherein there is a mutual voluntary agreement to Associate. ("Hey, can we work together? Sure, let's work together." See? Mutual voluntary agreement. No Sovereignty of one over another.)
But you're not arguing the case of a mutual voluntary agreement. You're arguing the case of forcible, involuntary expulsion.
Ergo: Show me first any founding document, anywhere, which states, suggests, or even implies your argument that any State or group of States has any such Sovereignty, over the associations of any other State, in the first place.
Then, we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such actions.
So, once again, here's the deal: At such time as you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, then we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such an action.
I'm waaaaaaaiting....
{{{crickets chirping}}}
The issue of state expulsion is not addressed in the USC either implicitly or explicitly. Their is no implied powers to expel a state either, IMO anyway. Why is this important?
Because you say so? Well golly gee whiz, thanks for clearing that up for us.
No State is exercising Sovereignty over any other State wherein there is a mutual voluntary agreement to Associate. ("Hey, can we work together? Sure, let's work together." See? Mutual voluntary agreement. No Sovereignty of one over another.)
And what is voluntary about an agreement you seem hell bound to force on the other states? What you are telling us is that if the other states admit a state then they're stuck with them. There is nothing they can do. There is no 'voluntary association' for them, no 'buyers remorse'. Even though the Constitution does not forbid it you insist on your claim that the states cannot expel a state they no longer wish to associate with. The 10th Amendment doesn't exist for you. Or rather, the 10th Amendment sort exists for you. It works for those states you want it to work for, and doesn't apply to the states you don't want it to apply to. But that is very much in keeping with the Southron mindset. Some states had rights, others did not. Some states could exercise the 10th Amendment, others could not. It made zero sense in 1860 and zero sense now.
But you're not arguing the case of a mutual voluntary agreement. You're arguing the case of forcible, involuntary expulsion.
And I'm asking you what prevents it. To date you haven't been able to come up with an answer. Or haven't you noticed that part?
Ergo: Show me first any founding document, anywhere, which states, suggests, or even implies your argument that any State or group of States has any such Sovereignty, over the associations of any other State, in the first place.
"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."
Then, we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such actions.
I've got the 10th Amendment. What you got? {{{crickets chirping}}}
Which must really echo in that empty space between your ears.
Which means that it is not prohibited to the states, right? So it must be permitted.
On the contrary. Any State may freely choose to leave its association, for any reason, at any time.
But you're not arguing the case of a mutual voluntary agreement, or voluntary withdrawal. You're arguing the case of forcible, involuntary expulsion.
Ergo: Show me first any founding document, anywhere, which states, suggests, or even implies your argument that any State or group of States has any such Sovereignty, over the associations of any other State, in the first place.
Then, we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such actions.
So, once again, here's the deal: At such time as you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, then we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such an action.
I'm waaaaaaaiting....
{{{crickets chirping}}}
I think I would use the word "could" not "must".
Piss Proud - Again?
So the 10th Amendment has conditions? What would you use to determine if it is 'could' or 'could not'?
It’s late so can you please just spell out your point on the USC regarding hypothetical state expulsion. It’s not that interesting, it’s late and I can’t get the point you are trying to make. Is their linkage to the USC:BOR:10th or something?
I'm trying to get Christian_Capitalist to explain why in his view states could secede without the consent of the other states but that the other states could not expel a single state without its consent. So by all means join in and tell us what prohibits it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.