I'm just trying to follow your usual twisted logic. If the fact that the states need the permission of other states to join the Union doesn't necessarily mean that the same is required to leave - your words not mine - then that means you admit that it is possible such permission might be required. So who's responsibility is it to clear up your doubts and determine whether the approval of the other states is required?
And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
Because the test is moronic in the extreme. A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry? I mean really. You couldn't come up with an analogy for the Constitution and some other group? You had to pick a totally unrelated, apples-and-oranges comparison?
Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790.
Because it was a member of the Union. It was one of the United States. If it wasn't then you tell me what stripped it of that status.
By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
Now, now, now don't get your mouth to foaming again.
That's actually quite humorous, coming from "non sequitur"...
If the fact that the states need the permission of other states to join the Union doesn't necessarily mean that the same is required to leave - your words not mine - then that means you admit that it is possible such permission might be required.
So your argument is that it's possible "the permission of other states" was required? Or is it that "the permission of other states" was definitely required? Carre to make up your mind?
WIJG: And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
N-S: Because the test is moronic in the extreme. A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry?
Actually, it's a reasonable analogy - unless, of course, you're a bull sh!t artist named after a logical fallacy...
;>)
I mean really. You couldn't come up with an analogy for the Constitution and some other group? You had to pick a totally unrelated, apples-and-oranges comparison?
My, but you do have a short memory - please reread my Post #448 (which was addressed to you. ;>). Here, let me repost it for you:
N-S: Except that 37 our of 50 states (44 out of 57 for Barack Obama) didn't join anything. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. Why shouldn't leaving require the same?
WIJG: "Why shouldn't leaving require the same?" Look at only the second clause of the Constitution (I assume that you've read at least the first two) to find your answer:
Article. I. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
If your argument was correct, then Representatives would have to apply to the federal government for permission to resign, before giving up their House seats, just because the Constitution specifies requirements for their admission.
You're an idiot - or maybe just the intellectual equivalent of the 'Crotch Bomber,' as I've noted before...
There, does that help? Probably not - as noted previously, you're an idiot...
WIJG: Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790.
N-S: Because it was a member of the Union. It was one of the United States. If it wasn't then you tell me what stripped it of that status.
LOL! You're quite amusing, when you're in a complete state of denial! (Which means you’re amusing 100% of the time! ;>) "It was a member of the Union," you say? Not according to James Madison:
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
...The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
Federalist No. 43
There could be no "reunion," sport, without there first having been 'disunion.' Rhode Island was NOT a member of the union, during the period specified. (Except, of course, to historical revisionists like you... ;>)
WIJG: By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
N-S: Now, now, now don't get your mouth to foaming again.
And don't forget to take your meds - might help clear up your memory problem (and maybe even your 'denial of reality' problem)...
;>)