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)...
;>)
No, that's par for the course when dealing with you. You can twist things in more bizarre ways than any other person I've met on this forum.
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?
No, I will state for the record that in my opinion the Constitution makes it clear that the need for permission is implied. I haven't changed at all. It is you who seems to have some doubts in your position. To put it bluntly, I say permission is needed and you seem to say it might be needed. That's progress and shows a move from your untenable earlier position.
Actually, it's a reasonable analogy - unless, of course, you're a bull sh!t artist named after a logical fallacy...
Well I'll defer to your expertise in bullshit. But can you at least answer my question? A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry?
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.
Why? For your claim to be correct then wouldn't the Constitution require that they show up if requires that they get permission to leave? I've read the Constitution start to finish several times and I can find the part about how long a term is and how many senators a state is entitled to and how House representation is determined but I can't find the part that says a state is required to send congressmen and senators. I find nothing that says that congressmen and senators must show up. If a state is not required to send them, or if they're not required to show up in Washington even if elected, then how can you come to the conclusion that Congressional approval is needed for them to resign?
There, does that help? Probably not - as noted previously, you're an idiot...
And that's supposed to upset me? The great and powerful Galt has called me an idiot? Am I supposed to go "Oh woe is me" and wring my hands in sadness? Is that what you're expecting? Well, sorry to disappoint.
Not according to James Madison:...
Ok, Madison is talking about the relations between states, not the relationship between ratifying states and former states. Nowhere in that quote does Madison say the state is removed from the Union. Nowhere does he say the bond is broken. Nowhere does he refer to them as 'former states'. Instead he says that the moral relationship continues, just not a political one. Which makes sense. If Rhode Island continued to send representatives to Congress in Philadelphia under the Articles of Confederation then nothing prevented that. They would not doubt be lonely and not accomplish anything but there was nothing that prevented it. There was a political disconnect but that did not dissolve the United States or break all the bonds between the 13 states. Nothing in the Constitution said that it did
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... ;>)
Ok then let's cut to the chase. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States, if it was "NOT a member of the Union" as you claim, then wouldn't they have to be admitted under the provisions in Article IV? After all, according to you the split was total, in the same manner as Vermont which went their own way after the Revolution. Yet Vermont was admitted through a vote in Congress and Rhode Island merely ratified the Constitution, in the same manner as the other 12 states. How could that be possible, if they weren't part of the United States anymore? Can you explain that?
And don't forget to take your meds - might help clear up your memory problem (and maybe even your 'denial of reality' problem)...
Your attempts at insults are getting more and more predictable. You need some new material.
This is notable because the Constitution "officially" took effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the 9th ratifying state. When the Confederation Congress last met, only North Carolina and Rhode Island were holdouts.
That would seem to imply that for a very brief period of time, the U.S. actually had two concurrent national governments with the old transferring its power to the new. The non-ratifying states such as Rhode Island would presumably have been bound only to the old government until their ratification of the new.