Replies

WIJG: Quite obviously, you believe the "union" to be something other than a political union.

KK: I never thought about it one way or the other considering the term “political union”.

WIJG: By all means, please enlighten us - is the union of American States "political," or is it something that is not "political?"

I wrote: “I never thought about it one way or the other considering the term “political union” and all of a sudden you put it on me to “enlighten” everybody about something I had not thought about one way or the other using your term?

Since you’re the one who brought the “political union” thing up (in response to my “A new government but not a new Union.”), why don’t you “enlighten us - is the union of American States "political," or is it something that is not "political?" Not that I’m all that interested because from my point of view you’re just using a weak arguing technique, diverting the discussion from the main line (is the Union continuous or did one Union end and a new Union begin with the Constitution) to a new area in which you think you can dominate.

In all honesty, you don't seem to have "thought about" much of any thing, based on your posts...

Another weak arguing technique: insult and ridicule. Also a technique used in the pseudo Delphi process for reaching consensus (as opposed to the legitimate Delphi process). And a technique used by some in authority to show “who the boss is”.

Since you’re the one who brought the “political union” thing up (in response to my “A new government but not a new Union.”), why don’t you “enlighten us - is the union of American States "political," or is it something that is not "political?" Not that I’m all that interested because from my point of view you’re just using a weak arguing technique, diverting the discussion from the main line (is the Union continuous or did one Union end and a new Union begin with the Constitution) to a new area in which you think you can dominate.

Sorry, sport, but it's your argument, not mine - you stated that the union formed under the specific written terms of the new Constitution (established between 9 States, NOT 13) was “A new government but not a new Union.” By all means please tell us, how a union between 13 States (established under the Articles of Confederation) was the same union ("not a new Union") as that established between 9 States (please see Article VII of the United States Constitution) ratifying the new compact. As I have pointed out repeatedly, nine does not equal thirteen, nor does nine equal twelve, nor does nine equal eleven, or even ten. The first nine ratifying States clearly seceded from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, establishing a new government, and a new union, between themselves, as is more than obviously apparent from the specific written terms of the two compacts (the Articles, and the Constitution) "[A] weak arguing technique?" 'Not hardly.' I cite the specific written terms of the compacts, while you base your arguments on some imaginary 'unwritten law.'

Knock yourself out: you're still wrong. In reality, our current "boss" (Obama) is offering the same type of arguments as you do - those based on 'unwritten law,' rather than the specific written terms of the United States Constitution. Hope you enjoy the company...