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.
[n-s]: 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
George Washington and the US Congress addressed the issue. Here's George Washington in Congress on August 22, 1789:
The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:
... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
From Congress on September 12, 1789:
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.
Who ya gonna believe, John....these folks or Nonsensical?
(With thanks to Walter E. Williams)
Thomas Jefferson — “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
James Madison — (the father of the Constitution) cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
Or — In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The South seceded because of Washington’s encroachment on that vision. Today, it’s worse. Turn Madison’s vision on its head, and you have today’s America.
The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
It’s quite simple, really. If you believe what Lincoln said (even if he did not believe it himself) “government of the people, by the people, for the people...” then it should be the people who decide whether to stay or go...not the government. It can’t be any more simple.
That Lincoln’s government ignored the beliefs of those who actually wrote and passed the Constitution (see above) and crushed “the people” who left their tyrannical abomination that had become the U.S., exposes Lincoln as the ultimate hypocrite.
Forcing people to be part of a “union” is not a union (at least as Lincoln himself defines it above), it is enslavement. It made southerners as much slaves to the Union as blacks were slaves to people in both the north and south.
Nonsensical says he loathes slavery while simultaneously embracing it and defending it as the preferred way of maintaining a “union”. Forced participation is NOT “by the people” nor is it a union.
All the other discussion is just so much jibber jabber. Which is why nonsensical’s name is most appropriate.
N-S: 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.
Once again, that’s rich coming from ‘non sequitur’…
;>)
No, I will state for the record that in my opinion the Constitution makes it clear that the need for permission is implied.
Oh, that’s sweet! You’re suggesting that a war that killed almost ¾ of a million Americans was justified on the basis of ‘implications?’
How nice…
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.
“I say permission is needed...” Prove it, sport – and we’re talking written, constitutional law here.
Well I'll defer to your expertise in bullshit.
That “expertise” was developed in response to your bullsh!t posts.
Thanks!
;>)
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?
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
You’re as amusing as always…
For your claim to be correct then wouldn't the Constitution require that they show up if requires that they get permission to leave?
What the h@ll are you talking about? You’re the “implied” powers guru – you’re the one suggesting that permission to depart is required, if admission criteria are specified, not I. YOU are suggesting that they would need federal “permission to leave” – not I.
Substantiate your own argument – idiot…
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.
Oh, that’s sweet. Guess you must have been reading the D@mocrat party version of the Constitution. Let me help you out, sport:
Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…
Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof [Modified by Amendment XVII], for six Years…
Read the Law of the Land, just once, before you run your mouth here…
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?
That’s your conclusion, not mine, sport – based on your ‘authority to control admission implies authority to control departure’ argument. I admit that it’s a stupid argument, but it’s all you’ve got…
;>)
Well, sorry to disappoint.
At least you’re consistent…
;>)
Ok, Madison is talking about the relations between states, not the relationship between ratifying states and former states.
COMPLETELY WRONG - allow me to refresh your memory:
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 [ratifying] and dissenting [non-ratifying] 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.
Mr. Madison was specifically addressing “the relationship between ratifying states and former states.” In other words, you’re a bull sh!t artist – as I’ve noted before.
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.
Obviously, you’re wrong (there can be no “reunion” without there having been ‘disunion’). But if you really want to claim that the union between the States is not legal in nature – and that the supposedly supreme authority of the federal government is therefore not based on specific, written law – go for it, sport…
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.
Oh, you betcha! And there’s nothing preventing Mozambique from ‘sending representatives to Congress,’ either – but it doesn’t prove your point, does 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
Wrong again:
Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Constitution was not established between non-ratifying States – it was established “between the States so ratifying the Same.”
What problem do you have with written law?
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?
Rhode Island was obviously admitted under the terms of Article VII, not Article IV…
;>)
Your attempts at insults are getting more and more predictable. You need some new material.
Only because it's in response to the bull crap you’ve been spewing here, literally for years. Maybe “you need some new material...”
;>)