[tpaine]

I don't get 'it'. - Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
39 tpaine


"Seems we're at an impasse."
-p36-

Only on that rather inane & limited point, imo.

Can you address the broad scope of the issue, as I outlined it at #39?

[philman_36]

Can you address the broad scope of the issue, as I outlined it at #39?
The "broad scope" seems to be limited to your...
The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights.
Yes, the States did agree that the U.S. Constitution was to be the supreme 'law of the land' governing the government's activities, functions, design, etc. as well as "our basic individual inalienable rights".
I don't see an agreement in 20. I see no contention either. You need to to back up to 18 and look at that again. I merely corrected what I thought was a misperception.
Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.
Where do you find me in contention with this? I agree with the basic principles of the Constitution. I disagree with what some says it does and doesn't allow/say. Just because it doesn't say that a State can't secede doesn't mean, to me, that a State can't do so if it chooses to do so. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union!
As an example...I can't force someone to stay in a club they no longer wish to have any part of even though they were a charter member of that club.
-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?
Proposed amendments regarding what? Under your scenario a simple amendment process wouldn't work. A whole new Constitutional Convention would be necessary citing specifically that secession was disallowed as well as numerous other things.