“The primer was for your benefit. You have no coherent concept of what sovereignty is, as your post goes on to show.”
And yet, you fail to address any of the points I made demonstrating that the Constitution absolutely was NOT a document designed to usurp sovereignty but a compact outlining how sovereign states could remain sovereign while working together. Even children understand this, which explains why you ignore it.
You are the Vizzini to my Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
“Jefferson was not a Federalist. Allow me to quote him verbatim:”
LOL! Thanks for proving me right. Wasn’t necessary. I already knew that. (You sure you know which side of the argument you are taking? Hint: Me saying that Jefferson was not a federalist is NOT the same as saying he was an anti-federalist. Didn’t want to leave you in a confused state.)
Well. All I can do provide the facts. I can’t force comprehension. You’ll just have to continue on as you are.
Thanks for the entertaining exchange, though.
Interesting dodge, but a dodge nonetheless.
I have told you exactly what I mean when I use the word "sovereignty."
What is your definition of the word? What makes an entity sovereign?
Princess Bride? Really?! OK Buttercup ;-)