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...
;>)
As pleasant as usual I see. Ah well...
If you can prove that State secession was unconstitutional, you will have made a point. Dream on...
The legality or illegality of secession is irrelevant. But let's say for the sake of arguement that the acts of secession were legal. Confederate forces attacked U.S. troops by bombarding Sumter into surrender, an act of war by any definition. The was and all the death and desctuction that followed were a result of that attack.
Actually, we're discussing your claim: “I say permission is needed...” (Post #536)
Really it all goes back to your post 477 where you said, "Rules regarding admission do not necessarily imply similar (if any) rules regarding departure." I've been trying to get you to explain that qualified in your statement and whether or not you believe that permission to leave might be needed? Or if you're waffling on that. Can we please clear that up first?
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
All in good time. But first I'd like to try and make sense of your analogy. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry? I'm trying to figure the connection between it and the Constitution. Assuming there is one.
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."
But you seem to think that if a state is required to get the approval of a majority of the other states impacted by their leaving then somehow that means that if their congressmen want to resign then that requires the approval of the other states as well. You keep throwing out these analogies that don't make any sense at all and I'm trying to find the connection between them and the Constitution.
So back to the question. Why would you say that if states need permission to leave then their congressmen need permission to resign? Where is the connection? How are the two remotely similar? States need permission to join the Union. Their Congressmen and Senators don't need permission to be elected to Congress. Once allowed in, states need permission to split or combine or change their borders a fraction of an inch or perform any number of other actions that might impact the other states. Once in Washington, Congressmen and Senators don't need the approval of other states to vote or to propose legislation or perform their duties. They don't harm the interests of other states by unilateral action. They don't impact the other states on their own in any way. So why would they need the permission of the other states to resign and leave? You're just not making much sense.
Keep on chasing your tail, sport...
Trying to make sense out of your posts, it feels like that's what I'm doing.
And nothing in the Constitution gave Rhode Island "any representatives in Congress," before they ratified the Constitution.
That's completely true. And?
Yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur. Please see my Post # 604.
Which made zero sense and which ignored the question. Or more correctly, contradicts your stated position. If Rhode Island ratified the Constitution then it means she was a state. If she was a state then that means she wasn't out of the Union. If she was out of the Union then the only way of achieving statehood was through the process in Article IV. So it's one or the other. Was Rhode Island expelled from the Union and allowed to rejoin? Or was she always one of the United States and ratified the Constitution. One or the other.