# The U.S.A. Constitution!



## 1stRambo (Apr 5, 2016)

Yo, fast forward to Larry Elder, he will tell you about the "Real Constitution!!!"


"GTP"


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 5, 2016)

Usually it's stated as; The Constitution of the United States......since America includes two continents..


----------



## daws101 (Apr 5, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Usually it's stated as; The Constitution of the United States......since America includes two continents..


He is an asshole all by himself.


----------



## Agit8r (Apr 5, 2016)

I can read the Constitution myself. Who needs to listen to Larry Elder or any other wingnut has to say about it?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 6, 2016)

People that bitch about our federal government the loudest seem to have the least understanding of our constitution. the constitution is quite broad in the power of the federal government and the supreme court has the power of judicial review and case law...The idea of going back to the 18th century is also retarded.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 7, 2016)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not by wrongheaded reactionary libertarians and their pathetic fantasy of an American past that never actually existed to begin with.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 7, 2016)

Matthew said:


> People that bitch about our federal government the loudest seem to have the least understanding of our constitution. the constitution is quite broad in the power of the federal government and the supreme court has the power of judicial review and case law...The idea of going back to the 18th century is also retarded.



Actually the legislative powers granted by the states to congress are quite limited. See article I, section 8. Raising taxes. Establishing weights, measures, and monetary standards. Regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the states. Protecting the states from invasion. 

Not what I would characterize as "quite broad".


----------



## daws101 (Apr 7, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > People that bitch about our federal government the loudest seem to have the least understanding of our constitution. the constitution is quite broad in the power of the federal government and the supreme court has the power of judicial review and case law...The idea of going back to the 18th century is also retarded.
> ...


matter of pov.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 7, 2016)

daws101 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Agreed. One could, I suppose, consider the powers granted in article I, section 8 to be quite broad. However it's a fact they are not nearly as broad as the powers that congress is currently exercising, not by a long shot.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 7, 2016)

Centinel said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


needless comparison


----------



## Centinel (Apr 7, 2016)

daws101 said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



needless comparison?

If you used a few more words, I might have a clue as to your point.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 7, 2016)

Having a powerless federal government was the last thing the founders wanted after the failure of the first system. They designed our current constitution to grant the federal government the power to tax and to do things...

The original system in the 1780's couldn't do anything...This was a major factor in designing the current constitution. They also understood that times would change and so they granted the supreme court Judaical review to keep up with reality.

Presidents like Adams were supporters of large government
The first treasury sectary Hamilton started the first national bank

It was all about giving the people a say in their government...NOT a government that had no power like liberterians want. Of course, that was sealed with the federalist papers that were being debated around the same time.


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 7, 2016)

The basic concept is quite simple, yet misunderstood almost universally.  The 13 colonies were STATES, which is a synonym for COUNTRIES.  They joined together with the idea that some basic, important functions could best be done by an umbrella government, without the STATES losing their sovereignty.  The functions are detailed in Article I, Section 8.  They include printing money, raising an army, establishing a post office and patent office, and so on.

EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the states.  Everything else includes things like real estate law, education, family law, criminal  law, commercial law, zoning, health care, professional credentials, et cetera.

Today's Lefties spit on this division of authority and want the federal government to control EVERYTHING, one way or another.  Hence we have the EPA, DoE, Social Security Administration, departments of housing, small business administration, and dozens of others that operate totally outside the constraints of the still - applicable Constitution.

Which is why the re e can be no compromise between Left and Right in this country.  One side respects the Constitution, and the other side rejects it utterly.

Free college education?  Un.  Fucking.  Believable


----------



## Centinel (Apr 8, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Having a powerless federal government was the last thing the founders wanted after the failure of the first system. They designed our current constitution to grant the federal government the power to tax and to do things...
> 
> The original system in the 1780's couldn't do anything...This was a major factor in designing the current constitution. They also understood that times would change and so they granted the supreme court Judaical review to keep up with reality.
> 
> ...



When the states created their union, they didn't create it to be powerless. They gave it a specific set of powers. These specific powers are enumerated in article I, section 8.

The problem is that the government created by the states has exercised powers they were never given.


----------



## regent (Apr 9, 2016)

The Constitution is what the Court say it is. 
Justice Holmes


----------



## Centinel (Apr 10, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
> Justice Holmes


If the federal government is the sole judge of what the constitution says, why was it necessary to write the constitution down in the first place? Why is it even necessary if nobody knows what it says?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 10, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > People that bitch about our federal government the loudest seem to have the least understanding of our constitution. the constitution is quite broad in the power of the federal government and the supreme court has the power of judicial review and case law...The idea of going back to the 18th century is also retarded.
> ...


What you might characterize is subjective opinion, irrelevant, and wrong.

The fact remains that the Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied.

And the fact remains that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI of the Constitution, and the interpretive authority of the courts. 

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 10, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> The basic concept is quite simple, yet misunderstood almost universally.  The 13 colonies were STATES, which is a synonym for COUNTRIES.  They joined together with the idea that some basic, important functions could best be done by an umbrella government, without the STATES losing their sovereignty.  The functions are detailed in Article I, Section 8.  They include printing money, raising an army, establishing a post office and patent office, and so on.
> 
> EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the states.  Everything else includes things like real estate law, education, family law, criminal  law, commercial law, zoning, health care, professional credentials, et cetera.
> 
> ...


This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong, typical of most on the right. 

The ‘basic concept’ is that the Federal Constitution, its case law, Federal laws, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. _Article VI, US Cont.

“8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the _Brown_ case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 18.

9. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 18.” _Cooper V. Aaron_ (1958).

This fact of Constitutional law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 10, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



When they created their union, the states gave congress limited legislative powers. The constitution enumerates these legislative powers, and the necessary and proper clause allows congress to enact laws that are both necessary and proper for carrying them into execution, thus, implying these additional legislative powers.

So the small set of specific legislative powers granted to congress, and the implied powers necessary and proper to carry them into execution. Nothing more than that, so really pretty limited.


----------



## regent (Apr 10, 2016)

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we  the states.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 10, 2016)

regent said:


> If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we  the states.


The constitution established between the states.


----------



## regent (Apr 10, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we  the states.
> ...


But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 10, 2016)

regent said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


The states established the constitution.


----------



## regent (Apr 10, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Then why did they vote for a House based on people? The states could have kept the whole ball of wax for the states but the  convention added a House for the people based on population. How did it work out, who has the power, the states or the people?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

regent said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



The States can possess no intrinsic power. As they are a mere concept. The people are the only true seat of power. Any power possessed by the State is lent to them by the people. The Federal Government is also merely an agent of the people.

This would seem obvious. But Centinel is hung up on a secessionist argument that won't allow him to admit as much.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarrre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
*Establishment of this Constitution between the States* so ratifying the Same."


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Actually, ratification was the mechanism of establishment. And the constition was established between the states that ratified it.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I've noticed that you have used the term "secessionist" in your recent posts. It seems as if you consider it a pejorative. I'd just like to point out that the constitution contains no prohibition on any state seceding from the union.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



But not the mechanism of *authority*. The States didn't act as agents on their authority. The States have no intrinsic authority. The States acted as agents for the people, using the *people's* authority. It is the people's authority that created the United States.

What you're citing is the mechanism of ratification. Not the basis of authority. 

*Which is ludicrously obvious.* But you keep trying to polish your secessionist turd....and can't admit it. Which should tell you something.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I'm just pointing out that, per the constitution, it was established between the states.

And what I'm citing is the mechanism of establishment, not ratification. Ratification was left to the states.

The states established the constitution.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And here we go....the same secessionist turd you always lay and desperately try to polish. There's really nothing more to you.

And sure it does. First, a State don't have the authority to deny the Federal Government any delegated power. As the 10th amendment makes clear. Jurisdiction of federal laws on State territory is most definitely one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government. Seceding denies the Federal government that power, violating the 10th amendment and numerous articles in the Constitution.

Same for territory. The States can't simply seize federal territory unilaterally. As that would be stripping the federal government of delegated authority yet again. And all State land is also federal land.

Third, the United States wasn't created by a State. It was created by the people of the Several States. And its only be undone by the same authority by which it was created: the authority of the people of the Several States. Says who? Says James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison:


_I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
You ignore the distinction, embracing the very fallacy that Madison describes. The Founders didn't. And of course the Courts have rejected your nonsense.

You can imagine that you know the Constitution better than the USSC and James Madison combined. But you don't. There's a reason why your reasoning has been rejected by virtually every court to hear it.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



As I'm sure you're aware, when the states established their union between themselves, they delegated to it s small set of specific legislative powers. Can you cite the language they included that prohibits a state from leaving the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Oh, and lastly....your own internal logic is just a steaming pile of horseshit. You insist that since the federal government is an agent of the principals the States, that the States can unilaterally secede from their agent.

But when this logic is applied to the agent of the State and its principals the people.....*you've laughably argued that any individual person can secede themselves and their property from the United States. *

Yet when I've asked you to show me *anything* in the documents, writings or conventions of the founders to back up such a steaming pile of pseudo-legal horeshit.......you've got nothing.

if your conception of the principal agent relationship were valid, they would work when applied to both the Federal Government and the People. But they break the moment we apply them to the people.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



*Any passage that extends federal law to the United States.* Are you claiming that federal laws don't apply to States?

And of course why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you? You're literally arguing the fallacy that Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Both Madison and the constitution that the States are equally bound by the Constitution. You insist that a State can ignore the Constitution whenever it wishes.

Um, no. A State can't.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

So let's say congress were to pass a law prohibiting states from leaving the union. Which of it's specific enumerated legislative powers (as enumerated in Art I, sec 8) would this law be necessary and proper for carrying into execution?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.



			
				10th amendment of the Constitution of the United States said:
			
		

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people



The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.



> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2



It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:


_I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

If so, please cite the law in question, and the tell us which of congress' enumerated powers that law is necessary and proper for carrying into execution.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power. 

*Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do*....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions: 



> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2



You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, *confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. *

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and _every court to rule on the topic_......and instead believe you?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 11, 2016)

Constitution?

On yeah!  Constitution!

Shit, I'm probably the only one left on this board old enough to remember when America _HAD_ a Constitution!


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution. 

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do. 

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself. 

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Just FYI.....you lost the moment you ignored James Madison and argued that any individual could secede themselves and their property from the United States.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union. 

You have yet to disprove this. 

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.



> You have yet to disprove this.
> 
> It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.



I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:



			
				US Constitution Article VI said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, I'm not saying that the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. The constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land.



> Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.
> 
> You lose again.



I agree that a violation of the constitution is a violation of the supreme law of the land.

I also agree that all laws passed by congress must be pursuant to the constitution. Also, any law enacted that is incongruent with the constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land. 

So is there a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Then your argument is over. As a constitutional violation is a violation of the law; the Supreme Law of the land. And is forbidden by the Supremacy clause. 

You demanded I show you what part of the constitution prohibits secession. And I've shown you: the Supremacy clause and any part of the Constitution that delegates to  congress the power to create laws that apply to the United States. 

You lose again.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



But you haven't yet proven that secession is legitimately against the law, so you continue to lose.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And you've already admitted that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

There's the law that is violated: the US Constitution. See post 42 for details. 

There's no where left for you to go.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Can you cite the law that you claim is being violated?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The passages of the US constitution cited in post 42. The U.S.A. Constitution! With you already admitting that the US constitution is law.

Enjoy that corner you've painted yourself into. There's no way out.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



There is nothing in the US code of law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Violating the Constitution is not legal. As the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. 

Try again.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I agree that violating the constitution is not legal.

Also, there is no federal law that prohibits a state from leaving the union. Thus, it's legal.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Not if a state violates the constitution in seceding. Which they do by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Which a State cannot do under the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

Laughing....I love watching you squirm. You're not getting out of there.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Why are you laughing? You have yet to prove that secession violates any law. You have failed.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



I'm laughing because I've already demonstrated that secession violates the constitution. Which is the law. 

And you've already admitted is the law. Its just so much fun to watch you squirm.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Okay, cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to prohibit secession.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Sure....the power to tax. If a state secedes, they strip the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to levy taxes in that State. *Any power of congress* that apply to the United States demonstrates the expressly delegated powers that secession would deny the federal government.

I've already cited Article 6, Clause 2 and the 10th amendment demonstrating that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power.

Squirm, squirm, squirm.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The constitution only applies to member states, not foreign countries. Congress doesn't have the power to tax Mexico, Canada, or Lichtenstein. Were a state to leave the union, it would have no effect on the power of congress to tax the remaining states in the union.

You have also failed to cite the language in Art I, sec 8 that allows congress to pass a law forbidding secession. 

Keep flailing.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And a State can't become a 'foreign country' in your estimation without violating the constitution....by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something it doesn't have the power to do.

Again, James Madison lays it out for you, describing the *exact* fallacy you're engaged in and telling you why its invalid:


_I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
There's a reason why every court ruling on this topic is against you: you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, my friend.....but you don't know the constitution better than James Madison.

As he rightly notes.....he was known to have drawn those documents. And you're just a guy contradicted by centuries of legal precedent.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



If you would like to prove your argument that secession is illegal, you might first start by citing the relevant US code that prohibits it. 

Until you do, you haven't proven anything. Everything not prohibited is permitted.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 11, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Already done. See post 42. And you've already admitted that violations of the constitution are not legal. 

You want a semantic constitutional argument, I win with the constitutionally delegated powers of the Federal Government, the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment.  You want an 'original intent' argument, I win with James Madison. You want an argument of legal precedent, I win with every court ruling on the topic. 

Enjoy your box. I'll certainly enjoy watching you squirm in it.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 11, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Secession is legal until proven illegal. Can you cite the law prohibiting secession?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 12, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No box involved. You have made the claim that secession is against the law, yet cannot cite the specific law, nor any of congress' specific enumerated legislative powers that such (non-existent) law would carry into execution.

You cannot substantiate your claim.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 13, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...


Secession is illegal if it violates the constitution.  Which it does as it strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. 

And you've already admitted that violating the constitution is not legal. 

See how that works?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 13, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



I've already cited the law that secession violates: the Constitution. Which you've already admitted is the Supreme Law of the land. You simply ignore the constitution, pretending that stripping the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is something any State can do.

_The Supremacy clause, 10th amendment and James Madison say otherwise._

There is no way out. Which is why your argument has a perfect record of failure in the courts, being rejected by every court to ever adjudicate such an issue. 

Enjoy the box.


----------



## regent (Apr 13, 2016)

Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 13, 2016)

Not so much about states leaving the union as the union having left many states.


----------



## longknife (Apr 13, 2016)

1stRambo said:


> Yo, fast forward to Larry Elder, he will tell you about the "Real Constitution!!!"
> 
> 
> "GTP"
> View attachment 70352


----------



## Centinel (Apr 13, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Keep flailing. There's no law against secession. Deal with it.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 13, 2016)

regent said:


> Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?



Or did the confederate constitution contain a law forbidding states from seceding from the confederacy? I don't think so. Just as the US constitution contained no law forbidding states from leaving the union.


----------



## 1stRambo (Apr 13, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?
> ...



Yo, that would be a Dream come true! Say, you "Mini Socialist Democrats" go east of the Mississippi River, and we "True Americans" go to the West side! You cross the River? You get shot, sounds great!

"GTP"


----------



## Skylar (Apr 14, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The constitution is the law. And secession violates the constitution by stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. That's something a state lacks the power to do.

You're stuck. All you can do is ignore the constitution, pretend it isn't the Supreme Law of the land, ignore the Supremecy clause, ignore the 10th amendment, and ignore James Madison. 

But you can't make us ignore at of it. Which is why  you lost. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 14, 2016)

Centinel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Did the Confederate Constitution grant states permission to secede from the Confederacy?
> ...



It indicated a perpetual union. 

No state can secede without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something that a state lacks the authority to do. 

The several states could. But not a single state. You confound the authority of a single state with the authority of the several states, assuming that they are the same thing.

And as James Madison makes ludicriously clear, they aren't the same thing.


_I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
Why would I ignore James Madison, the 10th amendment, the Supremecy clause, the constitution and every court to rule on this topic.....

.....and instead believe you? You've never had an answer to that question. Which is why you lost.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



What constitutionally delegated powers are stipped from the federal government when a state leaves the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



See post 42. 

The U.S.A. Constitution!

Where your answer is waiting in the exact same place the last time you asked.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Supreme law of the land? What land? Does that include Canada, Mexico, or Maine after it has leaf the union?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Maine can't leave the union without violating the constitution by stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Something the State lacks the authority to do.

See how that works? There's a reason why every court to hear this issue has sided against you.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And the constitutionally delegated power that the federal government would no longer have is...?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Laid out in post 42. Just like I told you last time. 

Reading what you ask for. Its what's for dinner.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I have looked every time you reference that post. It doesn't say what power the united states would no longer have were a state to leave the union.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



No you haven't. Try again. This time looking for the phrase '____________ is a power delegated to the United States by the constitution'.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Hm, I see it now: "The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

I disagree with your claim. Can you cite the supporting language in the constitution?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...




Where then would the legislative power apply? Geographically speaking, of course.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Where would the legislative power of the united states apply? To the member states of the union.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Would the application of the legislative power of the United States include the State of Maine?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The united states is comprised of all the states who are currently members of the union. So, for now, it would include the state of Maine. Were the state of Maine to leave the union, it would include it no longer.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Since the legislative power extends to the all the territory of Maine, how would Maine exit the union without stripping the federal government of the legislative power over Maine territory?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The legislative power of congress only applies to the united states. It doesn't apply to states not in the union. A state leaving the union does not affect congress' legislative powers of the states that remain in the union.

Secession does, however, disconnect the seceding state from the union, so the laws of the united states would no longer be relevant, just as the laws of the united states are not relevant in France.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



BTW, would the (hypothetical) addition of Puerto Rico as the 51st state unconstitutionally add legislative power over the Puerto Rico territory?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And how does the State exit the union without stripping the federal government of legislative power of that state's territory. You're skipping a rather important step. 



> A state leaving the union does not affect congress' legislative powers of the states that remain in the union.



It does however strip the federal government of its constitutionally delegated legislative power over the State's territory. Something a State doesn't have the authority to do. 

See how this works? 



> Secession does, however, disconnect the seceding state from the union, so the laws of the united states would no longer be relevant, just as the laws of the united states are not relevant in France.



Not without violating the constitution it doesn't. You're making the very mistake the that Madison warned of: confounding the single party with the parties of the compact. 



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> _I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. _



You insist that no state is bound to the compact and that none of the other states can hold them to it. 

Why would I ignore James Madison and instead believe you? Remembering of course that every court to ever hear these issues has rejected your nonsense.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



How would Puerto Rico be added to the union, specifically?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



There's no law against a state leaving the union and incidentally stripping the union of legislative power over that state's territory.

The constitution only applies to the united states. It doesn't apply to foreign states, including foreign states that were once member states.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Stupid question. You know states have been added to the union. Would the addition of a new state unconstitutionally add legislative power over the new state's territory?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



And where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution? The Supremacy clause extends the Constitution to all States as the Supreme Law of the Land. 

You do understand what 'Supreme' means, right?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Its not a stupid question at all. As you're describing extra-constitutional processes as the basis of your argument. If you're planning on using similarly extra-constitutional processes to add Puerto Rico.....then obviously it wouldn't be constitutional. 

So describe the process by which Puerto Rico would be added, citing the Constitution to back your claims.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yep. The constitution, and all laws made pursuant to it, are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made in pursuance to the constitution prohibits a state from leaving the union?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I'm not describing an extra-constitutional process. I'm describing the perfectly constitutional and legal act of a state leaving the union it voluntarily joined.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2016)

regent said:


> The Constitution is what the Court say it is.
> Justice Holmes


Nope. The courts do not have power over the constitution. Period. If they did, we would be an oligarchy. Which we are not. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. And when the court makes unconstitutional rulings, we are not obliged to follow them..because the ultimate power in our nation is the PEOPLE. We have authority OVER the courts, OVER congress, and over the president.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely extra-constitutional. As no state possesses this authority.

Now, describe the process by which Puerto Rico would be added to the Union. You're avoiding the topic like it were on fire because you know the process involves MANY states. Not merely the one in your extra-constitutional process. Its the contrast between your constitutionally invalid process and the very constitutional process of the many states that you're trying to avoid. And exactly what Madison describes.



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> _*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. *The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created._



The process of creating another state involves the parties to the constitutional compact of the United states. Not the 'single party' as your fallacy does.

And you know it. Which is why you refuse to describe the process by which a new state is created. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to run.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Actually every state has this authority, because it's perfectly legal, which is to say it's not illegal. There is no law made pursuant to the constitution against it, therefore it's not illegal.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



You didn't answer my question. *Where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution?*

As stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. As no state possesses this authority. 

The several states do.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...




The 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause say otherwise:



			
				The 10th amendment to the constitution of the United States said:
			
		

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people



The legislative power over the territory of every State is most definitely a power delegated to the Federal govermnent. Ergo, its not a power the State possess. 

And the Supremecy Clause makes it clear that the States are subject to the Constitution. 



> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Article 6, paragraph 2



You're insisting the exact opposite. That any state can strip the federal government of all powers at their whim and isn't bound to the constitution.  

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

You say otherwise. The Constitution, James Madison and every court case to hear this issue contradict you.

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you? Why would any rational person?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 
You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't making sense. But it's fun that you're trying.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So you're admitting that there's no law, made pursuant to the constitution, that makes secession illegal.

I agree. There is not such legitimate law. Thus, secession isn't against the law.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.



Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?[/QUOTE]

You left out a rather important part: the Constitution itself.



> *This Constitution, *and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;



The constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. You've already been forced to admit this. Making your obtuse and awkward omission of the Constitution itself particularly bizarre.

Irrelevant. But bizarre. 

And the Constitution delegates powers to the Federal government that no state has the authority to strip from them. The Several States? Sure. A single state? Nope. 

Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.



You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal. If you wish to support this claim you need to cite the language in the constitution forbidding secession. Otherwise your claim is unfounded and presumed false.

So far you have failed to support your claim. You have offered opinion. But no constitutional language forbidding secession.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



More accurately, I've cited the Constitution* as* law. The Supreme Law of the Land. And the Constitution doesn't allow the States to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

As the authority of the State to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power isn't authority possessed by any state.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.



I've claimed that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And that secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. 

*Something the States lacks the authority to do. *Show us where in the Constitution the State is granted the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power and you win. 

You can't. As the constitution includes no such power for any State. Which is why you lost.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Sorry. But it's not my job to explain the effects of a state leaving the union. Because it's not against the law. If you claim it is against the law, please cite the relevant legislative power.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



We don't have the authority to strip their constitutional authority..as far as it goes.
[/quote]

So if Maine seceded......the Federal government still has legislative powers over Maine's territory?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.
> ...



That's your opinion.



> *Something the States lacks the authority to do. *Show us where in the Constitution the State is granted the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power and you win.
> 
> You can't. As the constitution includes no such power for any State. Which is why you lost.



The fact of the matter is that it's not constitutionally illegal for a state to leave the union.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



No one has asked you to  'explain the effect'. Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union *without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers*.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

And you can't. It can't be done by a single State. It would require the Several States....just as it would to create a new state. 

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time. Which might explain why every court contradicts you, the constitution contradicts you, even James Madison contradicts you.



> Because it's not against the law. If you claim it is against the law, please cite the relevant legislative power.



It violates the constitution. And the constitution is law.

Try again.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So if Maine seceded......the Federal government still has legislative powers over Maine's territory?[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. There is no law forbidding a state from leaving the union. If you claim there is, then cite it.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It doesn't violate the constitution, and there is no law against it. Thus it's legal.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 
So if Maine seceded......the Federal government still has legislative powers over Maine's territory?[/QUOTE]

Maine isn't a TERRITORY. It is a STATE. And seceding from the union won't make it magically into a TERRITORY.

A TERRITORY is a tract of land prior to becoming a state. Upon being made into a STATE, a TERRITORY is no longer under the control of the feds. It is under the control ONLY of the state. And it will not "revert". I don't know where you're getting that garbage, but it's nonsense, and it's unconstitutional.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.
> ...


 You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're making stuff up. He didn't lose.

Show where the constitution says it's illegal to secede, or shut the fuck up. You're boring and stupidly ignorant.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The lack of authority to secede isn't my opinion. Its case law.  Your argument has literally never worked in any US court, ever. 

Mine has a perfect record of sucess. And of course is backed by James Madison himself:


_ partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
You choose to insist that you know the constitution is supposed to mean better than James Madison and the courts.

Um, no. You don't.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2016)

Unconstitutional case law is irrelevant. And you didn't cite it.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So I guess we're done. You claimed that, per the constitution, it's illegal for a state to secede, but when asked to support your claim, you have failed to provide the relevant law. 

Nice try.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 19, 2016)

"Absolved by an intolerable abuse of power"..you're arguing against yourself.

But even Madison's statements aren't the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says states can't secede.

That's because the Constitution was created for the express purpose of giving states the POWER to throw off the shackles of an insufferable government should they need to.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 19, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



As you obviously know I've claimed that secession violates the constitution as it strips the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something no state has the authority to do.

And you were done before you got here. As no court nor law recognizes your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity._ You literally had to ignore James Madison and insist you knew better on what the constitution was supposed to mean._

Enjoy irrelevance. Legally, historically and philosophically.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 19, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yes, you stated your opinion many times. But you've failed to produce any actual constitutional evidence supporting your claim that secession is illegal. Can you point to any of congress' legislative powers for which a law would be necessary and proper to carry into execution that would criminalize secession?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 20, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Secession being rejected as a power of the State isn't my opinion. Its caselaw. The Supreme Court heard secession arguments and rejected them. 

Nor am I citing me. I'm citing James Madison. Whom you ignore....for no particular reason:


_partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
You insist that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution is wrong. And you're right. 

Laughing...._nope. _



> But you've failed to produce any actual constitutional evidence supporting your claim that secession is illegal. Can you point to any of congress' legislative powers for which a law would be necessary and proper to carry into execution that would criminalize secession?



Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.

You've simply ignored the Constitution. And James Madison. And every court decision on the matter.

You lost before you ever showed up.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 20, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.



No. The government of the united states would continue to have all the very same powers it had prior to a state seceding. 

Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 20, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.
> ...



Nope. As the Federal Government wouldn't have any of the powers in the territory of the State that seceded, being stripped of all them despite each being constitutionally delegated.

A state lacks the authority to strip the federal government of *any* powers. Making secession a violation of the constitution.



> Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?



Right after you describe, in detail and with citations, the exact process of a State being added to the union.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 20, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids a state from seceding and stripping the united states government of jurisdiction over its territory?



> > Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?
> 
> 
> 
> Right after you describe, in detail and with citations, the exact process of a State being added to the union.



Why should I do this? I don't really care. 

Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?

Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses. 


> Why should I do this? I don't really care.



Why would I list the legislative powers when you can read them in Article 1 of the Constitution?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?
> 
> Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses.



The states may do anything that is not prohibited. The small list of prohibitions on the states are listed in art I, section 10.  As you can see, there is no prohibition on a state seceding and stripping the federal government of jurisdiction over its territory. Therefore, it is permitted.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?
> ...



The 10th amendment demonstrates that the states do not possess powers delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Article 1 delegates the legislative power to the Federal Government. And the Supremacy clause affirms that the Constitution applies to the States.

Show us where in the Constitution it explicitly says that a State may strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Again, you misunderstand the structure of the constitution. All powers not delegated to the union nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states (10th amendment). There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union, therefore it is a retained power and states may exercise that power at will.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:


_I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison
*_​Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:
> 
> 
> I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
> ...



Perhaps you don't understand James Madison. 

The constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:
> ...



Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a 'fallacy' and adverse to 'common sense and common justice.'

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.
> 
> Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.
> 
> Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?



The constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Not according to James Madison, who insists that a single party lacks such authority to modify the compact. But is instead bound to the compact. Your argument was dismissed by Madison as a 'fallacy' and adverse to common sense and common justice'. 

Now what's more likely.....that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Or that you don't?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And does James Madison cite the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union? Remember, per the constitution, powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave, since it is not prohibited, is retained by the states and may be exercised at will.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



So you're arguing that James Madison _didn't understand the Constitution? _

Seriously?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Neither he nor you have shown the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. Powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave the union isn't prohibited, thus it is retained and may be exercised at will.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you understand why a rational person might be a little skeptical of your assertion? Especially given the perfect record of failure your claims have garnered in every court to hear them?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.
> 
> Can you understand why a rational person might be a little skeptical of your assertion? Especially given the perfect record of failure your claims have garnered in every court to hear them?



I'm arguing that the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave the union isn't prohibited, thus it is retained and may be exercised at will.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.
> ...



You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work? 

Or that _you_ don't?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. 

I will again put forth my argument: Given that 1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states and 2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited, therefore the power to leave the union is a retained power and may be exercised at will by any state that chooses to do so.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'. 


_I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. *The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. *Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. 

*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. *As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. *_

_*James Madison*_​
James Madison understands the constitution better than you do. 

You can't get around that.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

So which of these is false?


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Your argument was refuted months ago. As the power you assume a State has to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers and modify the compact as a single party......it doesn't exist.

You don't understand how the constitution works. Says who? Says James Madison.


_*The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.* _

James Madison​
So you laughably insist that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But _you_ do.

Can you see why your assertions have a perfect record of failure in court?


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Okay, let me know if you ever feel you can falsify any of these premises:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

Until then, my argument stands.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



Nope. Your argument has never stood. As you simply don't understand how the constitution works. You're fundamentally confused on how the compact is modified, thinking that any individual state can modify it. Nor is is any state bound to it.

And as James Madison makes clear....you're obviously confused. 



> _The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created._
> 
> _James Madison_



Your argument breaks in the exact same place it always has: your profound misunderstanding of the constitution itself.


----------



## Centinel (Apr 21, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yet the fact remains that:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

You can yammer all you want, but you can't change those facts. 

Also, this could go on forever with you avoiding addressing the facts, so I'm most likely not going to respond to another one of your "you don't understand the constitution" posts.

I'll check back periodically to see if you address my actual argument. If you don't, I'm done. 

Later.


----------



## Skylar (Apr 21, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Centinel said:
> ...



The fact remains that you've misunderstood what the constitution means and how it works. The fact is that the single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact nor strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegate powers.



> _The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created._
> 
> _James Madison_



Ignore as you wish. It really doesn't matter. The Supreme Court resolved this issue legally 140 years ago. And James Madison destroyed your fallacy 'adverse to common sense and common justice' about 180 years ago.

You simply don't understand the constitution or how it works.


----------

