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?’
Considering the war was started by the confederacy it appears that they killed three-quarters of a million Americans over an island in Charleston harbor.
“I say permission is needed...” Prove it, sport – and we’re talking written, constitutional law here.
Let's clear up your point first. Are you now back-tracking and saying permission is not needed? Because if you're waffling on that then I need to keep an eye on the other stuff you claim.
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
Presently. First I'm trying to make sense of your comparison between the Constitution and the Publisher's Clearing House contest. What are you joining when you send in your PCH entry? You haven't said.
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.
Again, you toss out these idiotic analogies and when pressed to clarify you change the subject. You feeling OK? You really are not at your best lately.
Oh, that’s sweet. Guess you must have been reading the D@mocrat party version of the Constitution. Let me help you out, sport...
No, the Constitution. You should try it sometime.
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…
Ok, congratulations. You have successfully found the part that defines the length of the terms for congressman and senators. Now, what forces a state to send them to Washington if they don't want to? Or what forces a congressman or senator to set foot in Washington once elected? Because only if they're forced to go would that mean that they would be forced to get permission to leave, right?
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…
No, that was your conclusion, way back in reply 522 you somehow made the connection between a state leaving and a congressman resigning and stumbled to the conclusion that if one required the approval of the other states then so must the other. How you managed to arrive there is a mystery to me. I guess I just don't have your imagination.
COMPLETELY WRONG - allow me to refresh your memory...
Because you say it's wrong. Well no big surprise there.
Oh, you betcha! And there’s nothing preventing Mozambique from ‘sending representatives to Congress,’ either – but it doesn’t prove your point, does it?
Well sure there is. Nothing in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation gave Mozambique any representatives in Congress.
Wring again.
And exactly where did that break the bonds?
Look, you can settle the whole question very easily by answering the question I asked. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States and was a separate political entity not connected in any way with the other states - same as if it had been Mozambique - as you claim it was, then why did it not have to meet the requirements of Article IV to be admitted to the Union? Why was it required only to ratify the Constitution, same as the other 12 states did? Vermont had to get Congressional approval. The 46 states admitted after that had to. Why not Rhode Island? If it really had been expelled from the Union and all. As you claim. Over and over again. Incorrectly.
Rhode Island was obviously admitted under the terms of Article VII, not Article IV…
Obviously. And what does Article VII say? "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." So I guess that must mean that Rhode Island was a state. So how could it be expelled from the Union and still be a state?
Only because it's in response to the bull crap you’ve been spewing here, literally for years. Maybe “you need some new material...”
Awwww, now you've gone and gotten yourself into a bad mood again. Darn.
I don't know - have you caught up on your meds?
;>)
Considering the war was started by the confederacy it appears that they killed three-quarters of a million Americans over an island in Charleston harbor.
If you can prove that State secession was unconstitutional, you will have made a point. Dream on...
N-S: “I say permission is needed...”
WIJG: Prove it, sport – and we’re talking written, constitutional law here.
N-S: Let's clear up your point first. Are you now back-tracking and saying permission is not needed? Because if you're waffling on that then I need to keep an eye on the other stuff you claim.
Actually, we're discussing your claim: “I say permission is needed...” (Post #536)
"If you're waffling on that then I need to keep an eye on the other stuff you claim."
;>)
WIJG: Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
N-S: Presently. First I'm trying to make sense of your comparison between the Constitution and the Publisher's Clearing House contest. What are you joining when you send in your PCH entry? You haven't said.
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
Of course not...
;>)
WIJG: 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.
N-S: Again, you toss out these idiotic analogies and when pressed to clarify you change the subject. You feeling OK? You really are not at your best lately.
Hey, I'm 100% willing to stick to the specific, written words of the Constitution - no 'implications,' or 'penumbras,' or any other 'mumbo jumbo.' Of course, that would sink your argument, wouldn't it?
Sorry if I've not been 'at my best lately' - the continuous diet of bull sh!t you've been feeding us isn't exactly healthy...
;>)
No, the Constitution. You should try it sometime.
Say what? I'm happy to stick with the specific written terms of the Constitution - "You should try it sometime..."
Ok, congratulations. You have successfully found the part that defines the length of the terms for congressman and senators. Now, what forces a state to send them to Washington if they don't want to? Or what forces a congressman or senator to set foot in Washington once elected? Because only if they're forced to go would that mean that they would be forced to get permission to leave, right?
No idea what you're talking about, sport - I've never suggested that the States are required "to send [Representatives and Senators] to Washington if they don't want to." In fact, I have repeatedly cited William Rawle - who suggests the exact opposite:
...the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1825/1829
Keep on chasing your tail, sport...
No, that was your conclusion, way back in reply 522 you somehow made the connection between a state leaving and a congressman resigning and stumbled to the conclusion that if one required the approval of the other states then so must the other. How you managed to arrive there is a mystery to me. I guess I just don't have your imagination.
Obviously, the Constitution nowhere restricts the resignation of congressman from office, or the resignation of a State from the union.
What was your point, exactly?
;>)
WIJG: COMPLETELY WRONG - allow me to refresh your memory...
N-S: Because you say it's wrong. Well no big surprise there.
Actually, no - you're wrong because your claims fly in the face of historical fact. So let's review the facts, once again, just to rub a little more salt in your wounds.
From James Madison's Federalist No. 43:
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 (in Federalist No. 43) 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.
Nothing in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation gave Mozambique any representatives in Congress.
And nothing in the Constitution gave Rhode Island "any representatives in Congress," before they ratified the Constitution.
Or are you still on your mystical 'union outside the written law' kick?
Look, you can settle the whole question very easily by answering the question I asked. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States and was a separate political entity not connected in any way with the other states - same as if it had been Mozambique - as you claim it was, then why did it not have to meet the requirements of Article IV to be admitted to the Union?
Why was it required only to ratify the Constitution, same as the other 12 states did? Vermont had to get Congressional approval. The 46 states admitted after that had to. Why not Rhode Island? If it really had been expelled from the Union and all. As you claim. Over and over again. Incorrectly.
Yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur. Please see my Post # 604.
WIJG: Rhode Island was obviously admitted under the terms of Article VII, not Article IV…
N-S: Obviously. And what does Article VII say? "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." So I guess that must mean that Rhode Island was a state. So how could it be expelled from the Union and still be a state?
What the h@ll are you talking about? You are obviously conflating the terms 'State' and 'member of the union.' The two are not identical - sport...
Awwww, now you've gone and gotten yourself into a bad mood again. Darn.
Gosh - having to deal with kool-aide-drinking, historical-revisionist, living-Constitution liberals (like you ;>) always spoils my mood. Sorry, everyone...
;>)