# We the People



## dblack

Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.


----------



## Arianrhod

Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?


----------



## norwegen

It should say "We the States."  Though the Constitution, in great measure, sought to preserve the radical Whig polity that had already been the accepted statecraft of the American experience, it was the states, in the end, that ratified the instrument.  It was more of a compact among states than a social compact.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It means serving the people and being elected by those people in order to do so...Otherwise, government would demand the people to serve it.

SSI, Nws, fda, epa, etc all serve the people through making life easier for us.


----------



## dblack

Arianrhod said:


> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?



Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.

We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.


----------



## eagle1462010

It is a preamble to the greatest system of Gov't ever created..................It studied the failures of pure Democratic rules of Greece and corrupt Senates of Rome................Blended a cocktail of all the forms to create a system of gov't never before really seen............and it worked until we didn't heed the warnings of the Founders.........

The corruption in our gov't are laid out well by the Founders................and it is exactly why we are in decline.

When the elected officials are tied to lobbyist and their own interests the system fails and they ignore We The People for their own gratification.................and thus the United States heads down the rabbit hole.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

norwegen said:


> It should say "We the States."  Though the Constitution, in great measure, sought to preserve the radical Whig polity that had already been the accepted statecraft of the American experience, it was the states, in the end, that ratified the instrument.  It was more of a compact among states than a social compact.


Incorrect. 

“We the People” created a Constitutional Republic, reflecting the wisdom and desire of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law – not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly. 

“We the People” created a Constitution whose case law safeguards the protected liberties of the people, where those protected liberties are immune from attack by the states; rights paramount, inalienable, and protected from the capricious 'will of the majority.'  

And “we the People” created a National government, forbidding the states from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government – a government whose acts of Congress and rulings of the Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should say "We the States."  Though the Constitution, in great measure, sought to preserve the radical Whig polity that had already been the accepted statecraft of the American experience, it was the states, in the end, that ratified the instrument.  It was more of a compact among states than a social compact.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> “We the People” created a Constitutional Republic, reflecting the wisdom and desire of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law – not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.
> 
> “We the People” created a Constitution whose case law safeguards the protected liberties of the people, where those protected liberties are immune from attack by the states; rights paramount, inalienable, and protected from the capricious 'will of the majority.'
> 
> And “we the People” created a National government, forbidding the states from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government – a government whose acts of Congress and rulings of the Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
Click to expand...


Well said C. I think your conception of "case law" gets a little wonky, but this is spot on.


----------



## norwegen

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should say "We the States."  Though the Constitution, in great measure, sought to preserve the radical Whig polity that had already been the accepted statecraft of the American experience, it was the states, in the end, that ratified the instrument.  It was more of a compact among states than a social compact.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> “We the People” created a Constitutional Republic, reflecting the wisdom and desire of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law – not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.
> 
> “We the People” created a Constitution whose case law safeguards the protected liberties of the people, where those protected liberties are immune from attack by the states; rights paramount, inalienable, and protected from the capricious 'will of the majority.'
> 
> And “we the People” created a National government, forbidding the states from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government – a government whose acts of Congress and rulings of the Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

This fails as a gerbil-up-my-butt fallacy.

It in no way says why my post is incorrect.  The people did not ratify the Constitution.  The states did.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Also incorrect. 

It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.


----------



## dblack

norwegen said:


> This fails as a gerbil-up-my-butt fallacy.



Can you expound on the 'gerbil-up-my-butt' fallacy? I googled to no avail.


----------



## norwegen

dblack said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a gerbil-up-my-butt fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expound on the 'gerbil-up-my-butt' fallacy? I googled to no avail.
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
Click to expand...


Ahhh... there's the gotcha I was expecting. No, We the People establish a government to serve our needs. But the government isn't us. In particular the government isn't the ultimate expression of society's desires and values. It's a security service, hired to keep the peace so that we can conduct civilized interactions voluntarily.

That's the key hubris of the statist - the idea that the government IS the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## dblack

norwegen said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a gerbil-up-my-butt fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expound on the 'gerbil-up-my-butt' fallacy? I googled to no avail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Probably for the best.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

norwegen said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should say "We the States."  Though the Constitution, in great measure, sought to preserve the radical Whig polity that had already been the accepted statecraft of the American experience, it was the states, in the end, that ratified the instrument.  It was more of a compact among states than a social compact.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> “We the People” created a Constitutional Republic, reflecting the wisdom and desire of the people to be subject solely to the rule of law – not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.
> 
> “We the People” created a Constitution whose case law safeguards the protected liberties of the people, where those protected liberties are immune from attack by the states; rights paramount, inalienable, and protected from the capricious 'will of the majority.'
> 
> And “we the People” created a National government, forbidding the states from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government – a government whose acts of Congress and rulings of the Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a gerbil-up-my-butt fallacy.
> 
> It in no way says why my post is incorrect.  The people did not ratify the Constitution.  The states did.
Click to expand...

At least you're consistent at being wrong: 

'It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in _McCulloch v. Maryland_, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition...that...the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. _McCulloch_ affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers.'

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

Consequently your post is in fact incorrect.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

dblack said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a gerbil-up-my-butt fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you expound on the 'gerbil-up-my-butt' fallacy? I googled to no avail.
Click to expand...

This is why these thread are pointless – there's always a reactionary rightist who thinks the Articles of Confederation is still in place.


----------



## Holos

dblack said:


> Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.



Okay.

We The People (in this special case I myself, because in my perspective you have failed) should initiate this discussion by including the entire paragraph in which the expression makes itsef relevant.

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Simply stated, We The People are (in effectivenness) and is (in expressivenness) the resolution and congregation of perfecting courses and forces of action sharing fundamental principles based on their union through recognition of prospecting and already established and safe guarding multiplicities and similarities.


----------



## dblack

Holos said:


> Simply stated, We The People are (in effectivenness) and is (in expressivenness) the resolution and congregation of perfecting courses and forces of action sharing fundamental principles based on their union through recognition of prospecting and already established and safe guarding multiplicities and similarities.



No offense, but before you tackle "We the People", you might want to look up the phrase "Simply stated".


----------



## Holos

dblack said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply stated, We The People are (in effectivenness) and is (in expressivenness) the resolution and congregation of perfecting courses and forces of action sharing fundamental principles based on their union through recognition of prospecting and already established and safe guarding multiplicities and similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but before you tackle "We the People", you might want to look up the phrase "Simply stated".
Click to expand...


If it is no offense where is the continuity to the topic? Would you like me to reword it? I am now aware that your simplicity is on another parameter than mine. I can lower or raise my standards accordingly. What would you prefer so that you can participate in the topic too?


----------



## dblack

Holos said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply stated, We The People are (in effectivenness) and is (in expressivenness) the resolution and congregation of perfecting courses and forces of action sharing fundamental principles based on their union through recognition of prospecting and already established and safe guarding multiplicities and similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but before you tackle "We the People", you might want to look up the phrase "Simply stated".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is no offense where is the continuity to the topic? Would you like me to reword it? I am now aware that your simplicity is on another parameter than mine. I can lower or raise my standards accordingly. What would you prefer so that you can participate in the topic too?
Click to expand...


Uh.... ok.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.



The most famous and foundational use of that term would be the preamble to the Constitution. In that context, I think Madison's comments on secession give an excellent insight into what the founders thought it meant:

_"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. "_

Letter to Nicholas Trist,  December 23, 1832


----------



## Agit8r

dblack said:


> Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.



"we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"
-- James Madison; from Federalist #39


----------



## Skylar

Ooooh. Nice quote!


----------



## Agit8r

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)


----------



## Skylar

Agit8r said:


> of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:
> 
> 
> "I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
> -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)



Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.

Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.


----------



## Agit8r

Skylar said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:
> 
> 
> "I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
> -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.
> 
> Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.
Click to expand...


Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer


----------



## Skylar

Agit8r said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:
> 
> 
> "I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
> -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.
> 
> Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer
Click to expand...


Laughing...well obviously. But I wanted to get into the why.


----------



## Agit8r

Skylar said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:
> 
> 
> "I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
> -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.
> 
> Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...well obviously. But I wanted to get into the why.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Fascism is only concerned with individuals who are "elites"

"This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

y'know, a wordy version of "You did build that"


----------



## Skylar

Agit8r said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:
> 
> 
> "I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
> -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.
> 
> Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laughing...well obviously. But I wanted to get into the why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Fascism is only concerned with individuals who are "elites"
> 
> "This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses"
> -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)
> 
> y'know, a wordy version of "You did build that"
Click to expand...


Fascism is an offshoot of Romantic Nationalism, which itself was a post Enlightenment response to Classic Liberalism. Hitler was a furiously extreme example, but we see similar sentiment in terms of governance as early as Napoleon. A man who put the 'nation' above the individual citizen. 

The entire concept of nationalism, putting the 'nation' of people above the individual, is a step that when taken to an extreme, can lead to fascism. Putting the individual above the nation, as Classic Liberalism does, is a bulwark against it. 

The distinction is worth noting, especially in a discussion of 'We the People'.


----------



## Agit8r

Skylar said:


> The entire concept of nationalism, putting the 'nation' of people above the individual, is a step that when taken to an extreme, can lead to fascism. Putting the individual above the nation, as Classic Liberalism does, is a bulwark against it.



I agree that the individual should be the basic unit of society.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that the individual should be placed above the well-being of society.  There must be a balance between these, when conflicts arise.


----------



## Skylar

Agit8r said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire concept of nationalism, putting the 'nation' of people above the individual, is a step that when taken to an extreme, can lead to fascism. Putting the individual above the nation, as Classic Liberalism does, is a bulwark against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the individual should be the basic unit of society.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that the individual should be placed above the well-being of society.  There must be a balance between these, when conflicts arise.
Click to expand...


Not 'above' the well being of society. These are the nuances I'm speaking of. Its more about the foundational unit of society. Is society fundamentally a 'nation' (ie, the French people, the german people, the kurdish people) in which individuals exist in service to their nation. Or is society fundamentally individuals, around which a nation exists in service to its people?

Nationalism pushes the former narrative more than the latter. Romantic Nationalism farther still. And Fascism, to an almost ludicrous degree.

That's not to say that serving one's nation lacks utility. Or that an individual cannot be harmful to society. But the foundational priority on which serves which has profound implications in terms of governance.

Classic liberalism recognizes that rights exist individually, that power is wielded collectively, and that the State exists to preserve those rights. With this fundamental recognition exemplified by the phrase 'We the People'. As it is the people that are the foundation unit of society. Not a nation.


----------



## dblack

Wow - top quality posting today! Thanks!


----------



## Skylar

Another expansion on the initial question as it relates to governance would be in how people in general are considered. The concepts of Classic Liberalism weren't limited to a particular nationality, but to all men universally. When you see political rhetoric centered around the dehumanization of a particular group, you're seeing an assault on this principle of 'We The People'.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> Another expansion on the initial question as it relates to governance would be in how people in general are considered. The concepts of Classic Liberalism weren't limited to a particular nationality, but to all men universally. When you see political rhetoric centered around the dehumanization of a particular group, you're seeing an assault on this principle of 'We The People'.



Well said, and I agree. "The People" is a universal reference to a society of free individuals, not a nation-state.

I continue to see the common theme, expressed in most traditional uses of the phrase, of distinguishing people as something _apart_ from government, something _over and above_ government. That's why I find it disturbing that it is, today, so often used as a 'call to arms' for majority rule via government. That certainly wasn't Jefferson's intent.


----------



## MarathonMike

The people did not create the Constitution. A group of the most brilliant men ever assembled got together and designed and created the Constitution so that "We the people" could pursue Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a more perfect union. A union of states. The Founders designed the government to be self correcting and limited in order to best serve the people. The design was not for a strong central government but with more powers allocated to the states. That is why they named our country The United STATES of America not the United Federation of America.


----------



## Skylar

MarathonMike said:


> The people did not create the Constitution. A group of the most brilliant men ever assembled got together and designed and created the Constitution so that "We the people" could pursue Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a more perfect union. A union of states. The Founders designed the government to be self correcting and limited in order to best serve the people. The design was not for a strong central government but with more powers allocated to the states. That is why they named our country The United STATES of America not the United Federation of America.



Many of the founders didn't expect the United States to last a generation. Plus the constitution was deeply, deeply flawed. Almost fatally so. You may be putting the Founders on a pedestal that's a little too high and shiny.


----------



## MarathonMike

What was flawed in the Constitution and what fixed it? You used past tense so I am assuming you think it's 'ok' now, but that is an assumption.


----------



## dblack

MarathonMike said:


> What was flawed in the Constitution and what fixed it? You used past tense so I am assuming you think it's 'ok' now, but that is an assumption.



The part about giving slavery a pass was kinda fucked up.


----------



## Skylar

MarathonMike said:


> What was flawed in the Constitution and what fixed it? You used past tense so I am assuming you think it's 'ok' now, but that is an assumption.


Lets see.....off the top of my head:

Only land owners could vote. Only men could vote. Voting was generally limited to whites. Slavery. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, so the States could commit wild violations of individual rights with no oversight or restrictions.

We fixed all that shit. With the meat in that shit sandwich costing us hundreds of thousands of lives and almost destroying this nation.


----------



## MarathonMike

Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries. In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.


----------



## Skylar

MarathonMike said:


> Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries.



They're easy things to pick on from any one who values the idea that 'all men are created equal'. 

And given that slavery in particular almost destroyed the country, its rather easy to pick on historically. 



> In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.



White male land owning dominance. Kind of a rather small subset of 'all men', dontcha think? Especially when millions of those 'all men' were property with no rights. The horrid, loathsome hypocrisy of it was not lost on many of the founders either. 

We've corrected many of the fatal flaws of the constitution, aligning its practice with its lofty ideals. And we paid dearly for the constitution's original flaws.

Oh, and you never did mention the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. Talk about an utter clusterfuck. The founders assumptions on the role of the states was laughably wrong. The States were not the protectors of the rights of the people. They were the prime violators of the rights of the people.


----------



## ScienceRocks

We the people can vote for any government we want. It doesn't have to be a backwards libertarian government as the constitution is quite broad in the choices we can choose.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Matthew said:


> It means serving the people and being elected by those people in order to do so...Otherwise, government would demand the people to serve it.
> 
> SSI, Nws, fda, epa, etc all serve the people through making life easier for us.


If you think people don't serve the government try not paying your taxes for a while


----------



## dblack

Matthew said:


> We the people can vote for any government we want. It doesn't have to be a backwards libertarian government as the constitution is quite broad in the choices we can choose.



The question is, to what extent can _some_ of the people use government to force their will on everyone else? The power of democracy is limited for good reason.


----------



## regent

There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.


----------



## regent

eagle1462010 said:


>





eagle1462010 said:


>


Looks like we're a bunch of guys crossing the Rhine River during a winter in an open boat.


----------



## KokomoJojo

MarathonMike said:


> Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries. In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and *male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm*, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.




if that were true then how come Catherine of Aragon was Queen of England in *1553*

Think maybe there may have been other reasons?


----------



## KokomoJojo

Skylar said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voting rights and slavery are easy things to pick on from our vantage point looking back 2 plus centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're easy things to pick on from any one who values the idea that 'all men are created equal'.
> 
> And given that slavery in particular almost destroyed the country, its rather easy to pick on historically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the late 1700s where slavery and male dominance was the "norm", not right but the norm, I have to cut them some slack on those issues. I'm talking about the design and framing of the document itself and how well it has worked as the foundation for our laws and government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White male land owning dominance. Kind of a rather small subset of 'all men', dontcha think? Especially when millions of those 'all men' were property with no rights. The horrid, loathsome hypocrisy of it was not lost on many of the founders either.
> 
> We've corrected many of the fatal flaws of the constitution, aligning its practice with its lofty ideals. And we paid dearly for the constitution's original flaws.
> 
> Oh, and you never did mention the Bill of Rights not applying to the States. Talk about an utter clusterfuck. The founders assumptions on the role of the states was laughably wrong. The States were not the protectors of the rights of the people. They were the prime violators of the rights of the people.
Click to expand...



wow thats the first sensible thing I ever seen you post?


----------



## KokomoJojo

Skull Pilot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means serving the people and being elected by those people in order to do so...Otherwise, government would demand the people to serve it.
> 
> SSI, Nws, fda, epa, etc all serve the people through making life easier for us.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think people don't serve the government try not paying your taxes for a while
Click to expand...


well if people are citizens of a gubmint do they not hold the 'office' of citizen?.......and work for the gubmint in the capacity of citizen......and are they not entitled to every benefit that those the rest of the officers of gubmint?


----------



## KokomoJojo

regent said:


> There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.



Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them.  They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.


----------



## Skylar

KokomoJojo said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them.  They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.
Click to expand...


And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers? 

Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them.  They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?
> 
> Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power. This is why recanting on those arguments undermines the sovereignty of the federal government. It's basically reneging on the compromise that created our nation.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them.  They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?
> 
> Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power.
Click to expand...


Conceding to your opponents argument in exclusion of your own is losing a debate. Some of them were persuaded. Some weren't. Henry didn't like a federal constitution even after the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with it.

The anti-federalist argument failed. The federalist argument won. 'Lost' sounds perfectly appropriate to me.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them.  They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?
> 
> Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conceding to your opponents argument in exclusion of your own is losing a debate. Some of them were persuaded. Some weren't. Henry didn't like a federal constitution even after the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with it.
> 
> The anti-federalist argument failed. The federalist argument won. 'Lost' sounds perfectly appropriate to me.
Click to expand...

They won important concessions (e.g. The Bill of Rights), as well as forced proponents to clarify the meaning of the Constitution - emphasizing its intent to constrain federal power.

This is important, especially if you're contending that their "loss" represented a rejection of their concerns. In many ways it was an affirmation.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There wasn't much debate over "We the People." We the states did not ring true because not all the states participated, nor would "we the delegates" have much impact, most seemed OK with the people. Patrick Henry and others did protest, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Henry blew the whistle on them.  They were not authorized to create a federal government and they hijacked the name of the people when it was clearly NOT 'the people', as PH stated in his protest along with their fraudulent reasoning to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes Patrick Henry an authoritative source? Or one more authoritative than the rest of the founding fathers?
> 
> Remember, Henry was a leading anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't say anti-federalists "lost". They were persuaded, largely by the arguments collected in "The Federalist Papers", that the Constitution could significantly limit government power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conceding to your opponents argument in exclusion of your own is losing a debate. Some of them were persuaded. Some weren't. Henry didn't like a federal constitution even after the overwhelming majority of the founders agreed with it.
> 
> The anti-federalist argument failed. The federalist argument won. 'Lost' sounds perfectly appropriate to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They won important concessions (e.g. The Bill of Rights), as well as forced proponents to clarify the meaning of the Constitution - emphasizing its intent to constrain federal power.
Click to expand...


Kinda.

On the issues you're discussing, there were no fundamental differences of opinion...but of book keeping. *Both sides recognized that the rights in question existed. Both sides recognized that the constitutions intent to constrain federal power.*  With the anti-federalists wanting more enumerated and clarified verbiage than the federalists thought necessary to express _the same points. Points both sides agreed on._

On the fundamental issues that the federalists and anti-federalists disagreed, the federalists broke their foot off in the anti-federalist argument. The need for a constitution, a stronger federal government, a supremacy clause, the powers of the executive, the extent of judicial power, all of it....

.......the federalists won. Utterly. If mics had existed in 1787, Madison could have dropped one at the constitutional convention. To the extent that the Federalist Papers can be credibly used to describe what the constitution means. And the Anti-Federalist papers are historic trinkets of no particular value in defining the meaning of the constitution.

That being said, I'm glad the Anti-federalists pushed. As the bill of rights has been a superb bulwark against the encroachment on the liberty and freedom of the people. And have had far more utility than the Federalists assumed they would.


----------



## dblack

I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.



The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.
Click to expand...


Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but the argument doesn't get much legal traction. As the 9th amendment just toasts it. Precedent recognizes about an order of magnitude more rights than the constitution explicitly articulates.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the argument doesn't get much legal traction. As the 9th amendment just toasts it. Precedent recognizes about an order of magnitude more rights than the constitution explicitly articulates.
Click to expand...


It does, however, fuel political momentum. And that has a way of circling around to influence legal decisions.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the argument doesn't get much legal traction. As the 9th amendment just toasts it. Precedent recognizes about an order of magnitude more rights than the constitution explicitly articulates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does, however, fuel political momentum. And that has a way of circling around to influence legal decisions.
Click to expand...


I disagree. The history of rights in this country has been toward the broadening of them, with more and more rights recognized and protected with each passing year. With the courts frequent participants in the expansion of explicit constitutional protection.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually cite the Bill of Rights among the Anti-Federalists biggest failures. It's done more to confuse the issue of inalienable rights than to promote them. We've talked about the way freedom of religion has been perverted into a rationale for special privilege. And of course the general argument that listing some rights implies that government has no obligation to protect others - which has become a common premise in modern debates on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the argument doesn't get much legal traction. As the 9th amendment just toasts it. Precedent recognizes about an order of magnitude more rights than the constitution explicitly articulates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does, however, fuel political momentum. And that has a way of circling around to influence legal decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. The history of rights in this country has been toward the broadening of them, with more and more rights recognized and protected with each passing year. With the courts frequent participants in the expansion of explicit constitutional protection.
Click to expand...


That's only true in fairly narrow, special interest situations. Economic freedom, in particular, has been continuously degraded. To the extent that today we can't even decide for ourselves how to pay for health care. And the biggest problem is that concept of rights has been conflated with special privilege. Most people today don't even bother to distinguish between inalienable rights and entitlements.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th amendment removes any such implications. Only idiots who are constitutional novices insist that a right has to be 'in the constitution' to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly consider them idiots, but I hear the argument frequently. And not just from internet crackpots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the argument doesn't get much legal traction. As the 9th amendment just toasts it. Precedent recognizes about an order of magnitude more rights than the constitution explicitly articulates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does, however, fuel political momentum. And that has a way of circling around to influence legal decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. The history of rights in this country has been toward the broadening of them, with more and more rights recognized and protected with each passing year. With the courts frequent participants in the expansion of explicit constitutional protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only true in fairly narrow, special interest situations. Economic freedom, in particular, has been continuously degraded.
Click to expand...


The regulation of commerce has always been an explicit government power. The only question is the jurisdiction of a given government's authority to regulate. Not the extent of the power itself. What you're describing is an expansion of jurisdiction of *powers*. Not a restriction of rights. The 'economic freedom' you're referring to hasn't been an expression of 'rights'. Its been an expression of the application of power. What states *allow*. Not what rights mandate.

And the Bill of Rights didn't create this situation. As the past grants the States even *more* power over the individual than it has now as it relates to commerce. As the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the States to begin with.



> To the extent that today we can't even decide for ourselves how to pay for health care. And the biggest problem is that concept of rights has been conflated with special privilege. Most people today don't even bother to distinguish between inalienable rights and entitlements.



That's simply taxation. And taxation is a power well within the government's authority to regulate.

On issues of expression, religion, sexual activity, marriage, self defense, press, reproduction, free speech, ownership of other people, applying the Bill of Rights to the States ect......fundamental issues, *rights have dramatically expanded. *'The method of paying for healthcare'? That's a narrow special interest situation.

I would argue that your argument is exactly wrong. Literally opposite of the truth in terms of 'special interests' vs. 'fundamental rights'.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> The regulation of commerce has always been an explicit government power.


Nope. Interstate commerce. This was clearly understood at the time time it was ratified to refer to oversite and prevention of trade barriers erected by state governments. The intent was to maintain economic freedom, not squelch it. It was certainly never intended to apply to individual economic decisions.



> To the extent that today we can't even decide for ourselves how to pay for health care. And the biggest problem is that concept of rights has been conflated with special privilege. Most people today don't even bother to distinguish between inalienable rights and entitlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply taxation. And taxation is a power well within the government's authority to regulate.
Click to expand...


It's decidedly NOT 'simply' taxation. It's abusing the power of taxation specifically for its side effects - manipulating behavior in the guise of funding government. That logic puts all of our rights at jeopardy, as any of them could be the targets of tax incentives/mandates/penalties,


> On issues of expression, religion, sexual activity, marriage, self defense, press, reproduction, free speech, ownership of other people, applying the Bill of Rights to the States ect......fundamental issues, *rights have dramatically expanded. *'The method of paying for healthcare'? That's a narrow special interest situation.



The right to decide how we pay for healthcare is merely the topic of the day. Our economic rights have been falling by the wayside far faster that social liberties have been expanded. And often they've been sacrificed in the name of false social "liberties" that amount to privileges for special interest groups.



> I would argue that your argument is exactly wrong. Literally opposite of the truth in terms of 'special interests' vs. 'fundamental rights'.



How so? Let's take a less modern case. Would you say tax exemptions for religious organizations and charities is an expansion of fundamental rights, or a grant of special privilege?


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The regulation of commerce has always been an explicit government power.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Interstate commerce. This was clearly understood at the time time it was ratified to refer to oversite and prevention of trade barriers erected by state governments. The intent was to maintain economic freedom, not squelch it. It was certainly never intended to apply to individual economic decisions.
Click to expand...


And in the very next sentence after the one you cited, you can see the distinction:

_"The only question is the jurisdiction of a given government's authority to regulate."_

You're arguing which government has power over a particular act of commerce. *And the very argument you're having demonstrates that we're discussing an issue of powers, not rights. *If the State can regulate your commerce within a State and the Federal government can regulate your commerce between them, then the entire idea of 'economic freedom' isn't a matter of individual rights. As government has the power to enact elaborate restrictions on your actions.

The only question is WHICH government has that power. Not IF government has that power.

_Which is my point. _

Your 'economic freedom' argument is a largely matter of privilege, not rights. Actions allowed by government, either State or Federal depending on the type of commerce. With the degree of restrictions that government could enact on acts of commerce *far* more egregious in the past than it is in the present. You could literally BE an act of commerce in the past, depending on your skin color.



> That's simply taxation. And taxation is a power well within the government's authority to regulate.



It's decidedly NOT 'simply' taxation. It's abusing the power of taxation specifically for its side effects - manipulating behavior in the guise of funding government. That logic puts all of our rights at jeopardy, as any of them could be the targets of tax incentives/mandates/penalties,
[/quote]

There's no restriction on 'manipulating behavior in the guise of government funding'. If the government wanted to say, manipulate buying behavior by raising the tariff on British goods....it can do so. There government taxation authority is broad.



> On issues of expression, religion, sexual activity, marriage, self defense, press, reproduction, free speech, ownership of other people, applying the Bill of Rights to the States ect......fundamental issues, *rights have dramatically expanded. *'The method of paying for healthcare'? That's a narrow special interest situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to decide how we pay for healthcare is merely the topic of the day. Our economic rights have been falling by the wayside far faster that social liberties have been expanded. And often they've been sacrificed in the name of false social "liberties" that amount to privileges for special interest groups.
Click to expand...


'How you pay for healthcare' is a special interest issue that is trivial in comparison to free speech, free travel, reproductive freedoms, marriage freedoms, freedom from government violation of rights (both state and federal), freedom from slavery, the freedom to vote (for women, blacks, non-land owners), the freedom to defend yourself and many others.

Economics is commerce. And is explicitly within the government's power to regulate. Either State or Federal depending on which type of commerce we're speaking of. So you're picking an area that has never been a matter of 'rights' as much as an exercise of powers. With the state governments or federal governments *allowing* certain acts of commerce or certain codes of conduct in commerce. With vast authority to regulate.



> I would argue that your argument is exactly wrong. Literally opposite of the truth in terms of 'special interests' vs. 'fundamental rights'.



How so? Let's take a less modern case. Would you say tax exemptions for religious organizations and charities is an expansion of fundamental rights, or a grant of special privilege?[/QUOTE]

I don't know the precedent surrounding tax exceptions for religious organizations well enough to discuss the topic intelligently. Pleas select another example.


----------



## Centinel

The constitution 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." [emphasis added]


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]



And?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Centinel said:


> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]


The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.


----------



## Centinel

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.
Click to expand...


The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.
Click to expand...


The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.
Click to expand...


Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.
Click to expand...


With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The regulation of commerce has always been an explicit government power.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Interstate commerce. This was clearly understood at the time time it was ratified to refer to oversite and prevention of trade barriers erected by state governments. The intent was to maintain economic freedom, not squelch it. It was certainly never intended to apply to individual economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the very next sentence after the one you cited, you can see the distinction:
> 
> _"The only question is the jurisdiction of a given government's authority to regulate."_
> 
> You're arguing which government has power over a particular act of commerce.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm arguing what the intention of the Commerce Clause was. I've read exactly nothing to indicate it was proposed as a way for government to dictate personal economic decisions. In any case, I'm not that interested in tedious arm wrestling over the founder's intent. None of us were there. It matters when making legal determinations about Constitutional rules, but I'm more interested in shared values. What do we want it to mean? And why? That's what's interesting, and in the end it's what will drive future policy.

In this case, I'm saying that economic freedom is every bit as fundamental and freedom of speech. It's essentially just a subset of 'freedom of association'.



> The only question is WHICH government has that power. Not IF government has that power.



There is always the question of whether government _should_ have that power, which is what I'm talking about.




> That's simply taxation. And taxation is a power well within the government's authority to regulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's decidedly NOT 'simply' taxation. It's abusing the power of taxation specifically for its side effects - manipulating behavior in the guise of funding government. That logic puts all of our rights at jeopardy, as any of them could be the targets of tax incentives/mandates/penalties,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no restriction on 'manipulating behavior in the guise of government funding'. If the government wanted to say, manipulate buying behavior by raising the tariff on British goods....it can do so. There government taxation authority is broad.
Click to expand...


But should it? Why should it have power to do something in the guise of taxation that it would never be allowed via direct legislation? It's this contradiction that was laid bare by Robert's decision on ACA, and why it was such act of hypocrisy.

If we can agree that it would be against the spirit, and the letter, of the Constitution for Congress to pass a law forcing us to buy something, why is ok to do so by calling it simply calling it a tax?



> 'How you pay for healthcare' is a special interest issue that is trivial in comparison to free speech, free travel, reproductive freedoms, marriage freedoms, freedom from government violation of rights (both state and federal), freedom from slavery, the freedom to vote (for women, blacks, non-land owners), the freedom to defend yourself and many others.



I disagree. The freedom to decide how you pay for healthcare is a specific expression of the very general, and very fundamental freedom of association.



> I would argue that your argument is exactly wrong. Literally opposite of the truth in terms of 'special interests' vs. 'fundamental rights'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Let's take a less modern case. Would you say tax exemptions for religious organizations and charities is an expansion of fundamental rights, or a grant of special privilege?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the precedent surrounding tax exceptions for religious organizations well enough to discuss the topic intelligently. Please select another example.
Click to expand...


Nah. I think you know enough about the argument, as many times as I've made it. We sell out real, universal rights - held by individuals - and convert them into privileges reserved for special interest groups. It happened with freedom of religion. It happened with the modern 'civil rights' movement. It's happening today with the so-called 'right' to healthcare.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution 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." [emphasis added]
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.
Click to expand...


The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The regulation of commerce has always been an explicit government power.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Interstate commerce. This was clearly understood at the time time it was ratified to refer to oversite and prevention of trade barriers erected by state governments. The intent was to maintain economic freedom, not squelch it. It was certainly never intended to apply to individual economic decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the very next sentence after the one you cited, you can see the distinction:
> 
> _"The only question is the jurisdiction of a given government's authority to regulate."_
> 
> You're arguing which government has power over a particular act of commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not. I'm arguing what the intention of the Commerce Clause was. I've read exactly nothing to indicate it was proposed as a way for government to dictate personal economic decisions.In any case, I'm not that interested in tedious arm wrestling over the founder's intent. None of us were there. It matters when making legal determinations about Constitutional rules, but I'm more interested in shared values. What do we want it to mean? And why? That's what's interesting, and in the end it's what will drive future policy.
Click to expand...


If we're talking about future policy, then I'd say it should reflect our values and sense of integrity and fairness. Which seem reasonably connected to commerce.



> In this case, I'm saying that economic freedom is every bit as fundamental and freedom of speech. It's essentially just a subset of 'freedom of association'.



As speech....AND religion....AND privacy....AND self defense.....AND marriage.....AND sexual activity (at least the consensual adult stuff)?

If we've 'regressed' in one area but surged forward in half a dozen other, I'd say that's a clear progression toward greater rights.



> There is always the question of whether government _should_ have that power, which is what I'm talking about.



On issues that are genuinely about living.....like food, transportation, housing, clothing, maintenance supplies, employment, etc.....yeah, definitely. As these are the means that goods and services are distributed in our society. We recognize that the denial of access to these is harm when done by government. I don't see it as any less harmful when done by private individuals.

And its completely reasonable for a State to set reasonable standards of conduct in business within its boundaries. A code of conduct that reflects the people of that State.

On non-essential items....like coffee houses, wedding cake bakers, jewelry stores and the like? The imperative is less demanding as the goods are less necessary. So I'd be willing to acquiesces to the desires of the seller on this.

But on say, food? The harm and loss of freedom to the person unable to buy basic necessities is far more egregious than the harm to the seller of having to sell goods to someone they don't want to. Especially when goods and services are overwhelmingly distributed by private hands. 



> There's no restriction on 'manipulating behavior in the guise of government funding'. If the government wanted to say, manipulate buying behavior by raising the tariff on British goods....it can do so. There government taxation authority is broad.



But should it? Why should it have power to do something in the guise of taxation that it would never be allowed via direct legislation? It's this contradiction that was laid bare by Robert's decision on ACA, and why it was such act of hypocrisy.

But why wouldn't we allow it outside taxation? Because the government lacks the authority to collect the funds without taxation. However, it does possess the authority within its taxation powers. So the reason to deny it ceases to exist within the authority proscribed to the government.

Why wouldn't taxation reflect the values of the people like any other law?



> Nah. I think you know enough about the argument, as many times as I've made it. We sell out real, universal rights - held by individuals - and convert them into privileges reserved for special interest groups. It happened with freedom of religion. It happened with the modern 'civil rights' movement. It's happening today with the so-called 'right' to healthcare.



Oh, I can talk 'about' the issue. But I'd be citing my opinion on the matter. And a relatively uninformed one. I prefer to base my arguments in something far less ephemeral.....like legal precedent. And I genuinely don't know enough about caselaw surrounding tax exemption for churches to discuss it intelligently. If I know an area of law, I'll tell you. If I don't, I'll tell you.

I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the creation of the people, not the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and the National government they created, a National government that is supreme, whose laws are binding on the states, which are subordinate to the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.
> 
> Consequently the 'argument' that the states 'created' the Federal government is factually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
Click to expand...


'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory. 

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply. 

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution contradicts your opinion. It says that the constitution is established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
Click to expand...


So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.



Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed. I referenced freedom of religion because it's a good example of the inverted ways rights can be conceived, or arguably, misappropriated. Freedom of religion is, like all rights, is just an example of our general claim to liberty. There's no sensible reason for government to protect freedom of religion any more than it protects the more general freedom to think for ourselves (and act on those thoughts).

The problem arises when people start thinking of specially noted rights, like freedom of religion, as an indication of special protection or even special privilege. We moved from thinking of freedom of religion as prohibition on government mandating religion to seeing it as justification for special exemptions from various laws. The irony here is that that perspective ultimately undermines the original intent. In order for government to issue special exemptions for religious belief, they must make the call on which religious beliefs are valid, and which aren't. Government ends up doing the very thing the original "right" was supposed to prevent.

And the real problem with this "promoting" of a right to a special privilege isn't just that it undermines the original right, it jeopardizes the underlying freedoms as well. Can we really say we have freedom of association when some associations are "more free than others"?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The preamble makes it clear that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
Click to expand...


As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
Click to expand...


Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.
Click to expand...


The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.

Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.

The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.

Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that. 

We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
Click to expand...


States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.
> 
> And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.
> 
> That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.
Click to expand...


Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign.
Click to expand...


Were? 

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.
> 
> And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.
> 
> That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.
Click to expand...


Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.
> 
> Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.
> 
> The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were?
> 
> Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?
Click to expand...


The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.
> 
> And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.
> 
> That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.
Click to expand...


Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were?
> 
> Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.
> 
> Which, of course, they can't.
> 
> And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.
> 
> Our sources are not equal.
Click to expand...


So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.
> 
> And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.
> 
> That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.
Click to expand...


Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.
> 
> That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.
> 
> Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were?
> 
> Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.
> 
> Which, of course, they can't.
> 
> And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.
> 
> Our sources are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
Click to expand...


The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._

Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.

It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.

Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.
> 
> And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.
> 
> That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders. 

To the founders, Pennsylvania was in the same class as France or Spain. Each was a state, and the constitution was established between such states/nations.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were?
> 
> Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.
> 
> Which, of course, they can't.
> 
> And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.
> 
> Our sources are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._
> 
> Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.
> 
> Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.
Click to expand...


The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.

When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.
> 
> And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.
> 
> That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you'll find me where in the constitution the explicit language is that recognizes a State as a nation. 

'Explicit language' was your standard, yes?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> States that *were* sovereign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were?
> 
> Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.
> 
> Which, of course, they can't.
> 
> And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.
> 
> Our sources are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._
> 
> Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.
> 
> Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.
Click to expand...


The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.



> 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.



I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means. 



> When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.



Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself. 

So show us where this explicit language is.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'll find me where in the constitution the explicit language is that recognizes a State as a nation.
> 
> 'Explicit language' was your standard, yes?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what the founders understood a state to be. 

Perhaps this will help. Treaty of Paris:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, *Pennsylvania*, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be *free sovereign and Independent States*; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."

The constitution was an interstate compact, i.e. a treaty between states.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.
> 
> Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.
> 
> The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.
> 
> Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.
> 
> We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?
Click to expand...


I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.


----------



## Publius1787

dblack said:


> Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.



It's a preamble, it means nothing and grants no power to anyone. _United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co_


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were?
> 
> Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.
> 
> Which, of course, they can't.
> 
> And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.
> 
> Our sources are not equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._
> 
> Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.
> 
> Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.
> 
> So show us where this explicit language is.
Click to expand...


It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.
> 
> Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.
> 
> The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.
> 
> Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.
> 
> We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.
Click to expand...


Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.
> 
> We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.
> 
> Which, of course, they can't.
> 
> And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.
> 
> Our sources are not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._
> 
> Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.
> 
> Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.
> 
> So show us where this explicit language is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
Click to expand...


Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty. 

Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.
> 
> Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.
> 
> The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.
> 
> Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.
> 
> We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
Click to expand...


Lots of things, in my view. 

But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.
> 
> Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.
> 
> The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.
> 
> Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.
> 
> We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things, in my view.
> 
> But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.
Click to expand...


I'm not bored by the conversation. I'm bored by having the conversation *again*. We've mapped out our fundamental disagreements. I think freedom can be inhibited and violated by *other people*. You disagree.

We understand each other's position. I think your position is foolish but principled. I can see how you got there. I just think you've prioritized the wrong things, resulting in less useful conclusions. 

You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'll find me where in the constitution the explicit language is that recognizes a State as a nation.
> 
> 'Explicit language' was your standard, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to understand what the founders understood a state to be.
> 
> Perhaps this will help. Treaty of Paris:
> 
> "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, *Pennsylvania*, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be *free sovereign and Independent States*; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."
> 
> The constitution was an interstate compact, i.e. a treaty between states.
Click to expand...


You said it was an international compact. Can I take it by your change of terms that you acknowledge that you can't back that up?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._
> 
> Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.
> 
> Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.
> 
> So show us where this explicit language is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty.
Click to expand...


It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is. 



> Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?



I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'll find me where in the constitution the explicit language is that recognizes a State as a nation.
> 
> 'Explicit language' was your standard, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to understand what the founders understood a state to be.
> 
> Perhaps this will help. Treaty of Paris:
> 
> "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, *Pennsylvania*, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be *free sovereign and Independent States*; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."
> 
> The constitution was an interstate compact, i.e. a treaty between states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said it was an international compact. Can I take it by your change of terms that you acknowledge that you can't back that up?
Click to expand...


International law refers to the rules by which sovereign states interact. The constitution, being an agreement between sovereign, independent states can certainly be regarded as an international compact.

If you disagree that the constitution is an agreement established between sovereign, independent states, then feel free to explain how it isn't.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution _above the law of any state._
> 
> Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.
> 
> It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.
> 
> Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.
> 
> So show us where this explicit language is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is.
Click to expand...


Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.

Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.

Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.



> Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.
Click to expand...


Perhaps this will refresh your memory:



			
				Centinel said:
			
		

> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.



Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.

If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

CENTINEL SAID:

"So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty." 

Article VI.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.
> 
> Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.
> 
> The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.
> 
> Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.
> 
> We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things, in my view.
> 
> But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not bored by the conversation. I'm bored by having the conversation *again*. We've mapped out our fundamental disagreements. I think freedom can be inhibited and violated by *other people*. You disagree.
Click to expand...


The fact that you characterize it that way tells me you don't, in fact, understand my position at all.



> You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?



So why are you still typing?

I raise the point with anyone I think might be able to comprehend it. Because I think it's important. The shift to corporatism, I think, will go down in history as the most important change taking place in the US., and will mark the beginning of the end for liberal democracy.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.
> 
> So show us where this explicit language is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.
> 
> Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.
> 
> Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.
> 
> If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.
Click to expand...


Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.

The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.

The fact also remains that these sovereign states sent delegates to establish compact between themselves.

If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.

Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.
> 
> Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.
> 
> The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.
> 
> Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.
> 
> We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things, in my view.
> 
> But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not bored by the conversation. I'm bored by having the conversation *again*. We've mapped out our fundamental disagreements. I think freedom can be inhibited and violated by *other people*. You disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you characterize it that way tells me you don't, in fact, understand my position at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you still typing?
> 
> I raise the point with anyone I think might be able to comprehend it. Because I think it's important. The shift to corporatism, I think, will go down in history as the most important change taking place in the US., and will mark the beginning of the end for liberal democracy.
Click to expand...


Because we weren't having your trademark conversation until you predictably steered the conversation off the road and into the same ditch you always do.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above any State.
> 
> I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.
> 
> Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.
> 
> So show us where this explicit language is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.
> 
> Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.
> 
> Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.
> 
> If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
Click to expand...


You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.



> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.



They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.



> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.




Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.

That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.



> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.



With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things, in my view.
> 
> But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not bored by the conversation. I'm bored by having the conversation *again*. We've mapped out our fundamental disagreements. I think freedom can be inhibited and violated by *other people*. You disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you characterize it that way tells me you don't, in fact, understand my position at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you still typing?
> 
> I raise the point with anyone I think might be able to comprehend it. Because I think it's important. The shift to corporatism, I think, will go down in history as the most important change taking place in the US., and will mark the beginning of the end for liberal democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we weren't having your trademark conversation until you predictably steered the conversation off the road and into the same ditch you always do.
Click to expand...


Oh... I see. You're just trying to control the discussion. Sorry. Not your call.


----------



## Skylar

dblack said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things, in my view.
> 
> But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not bored by the conversation. I'm bored by having the conversation *again*. We've mapped out our fundamental disagreements. I think freedom can be inhibited and violated by *other people*. You disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you characterize it that way tells me you don't, in fact, understand my position at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you still typing?
> 
> I raise the point with anyone I think might be able to comprehend it. Because I think it's important. The shift to corporatism, I think, will go down in history as the most important change taking place in the US., and will mark the beginning of the end for liberal democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we weren't having your trademark conversation until you predictably steered the conversation off the road and into the same ditch you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh... I see. You're just trying to control the discussion. Sorry. Not your call.
Click to expand...


I certainly control my participation in our discussion. When you drive the conversation off the same cliff you always do......the conversation ends. 

Like it just did.


----------



## dblack

Skylar said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things, in my view.
> 
> But listen, I'm not here to convince you to engage in conversation that bores you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not bored by the conversation. I'm bored by having the conversation *again*. We've mapped out our fundamental disagreements. I think freedom can be inhibited and violated by *other people*. You disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you characterize it that way tells me you don't, in fact, understand my position at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you still typing?
> 
> I raise the point with anyone I think might be able to comprehend it. Because I think it's important. The shift to corporatism, I think, will go down in history as the most important change taking place in the US., and will mark the beginning of the end for liberal democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we weren't having your trademark conversation until you predictably steered the conversation off the road and into the same ditch you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh... I see. You're just trying to control the discussion. Sorry. Not your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly control my participation in our discussion. When you drive the conversation off the same cliff you always do......the conversation ends.
> 
> Like it just did.
Click to expand...


Ok. Well, you can pout then. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, all you have to do is stop.


----------



## Lilah

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
Click to expand...


Does that hold true in a brokered convention?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that hold true in a brokered convention?
Click to expand...


The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
Click to expand...


Extra incorrect.

We the People distinguishes the people _from_ government - as over and above government. It emphasize that people create governments to serve them, not the other way around.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that hold true in a brokered convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
Click to expand...


So, out the window ...


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that hold true in a brokered convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
Click to expand...


In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that hold true in a brokered convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
Click to expand...


We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that hold true in a brokered convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
Click to expand...


The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that hold true in a brokered convention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
Click to expand...


Was Lincoln part of the government?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
Click to expand...


Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.


----------



## dblack

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
Click to expand...


???


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, out the window ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
Click to expand...


He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the constitution, it was never in the house to begin with. You might as well be talking about the president of your local PTA or Elk's lodge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?
Click to expand...


I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the people are not always one with our government.  Do you understand why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
Click to expand...


Electors


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republican party isn't 'government'. Its a political party. There's no mention of them in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors
Click to expand...


Which are assigned by the States. 

What do they have to do with brokered conventions for the Republican party?


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln part of the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sandwich.
Click to expand...


No thank you.  I had sushi.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Lincoln was an elected official. Not a political party. Political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I had sushi.
Click to expand...


What do electors have to do with this.

You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He became the Republican presidential nominee at a brokered convention.  Are you able to follow along now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I had sushi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do electors have to do with this.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...


Do you understand how a brokered convention works?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am. I'm still not seeing the constitutional significance. As political parties have nothing to do with the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I had sushi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do electors have to do with this.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how a brokered convention works?
Click to expand...


Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sandwich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I had sushi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do electors have to do with this.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how a brokered convention works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.
Click to expand...


If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandwich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I had sushi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do electors have to do with this.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how a brokered convention works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.
Click to expand...


A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.

Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.
> 
> Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.
> 
> Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.
> 
> If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
Click to expand...


Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us the explicit language that demonstrates that the constitution is a treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.
> 
> Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.
> 
> Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.
> 
> If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
Click to expand...


With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I had sushi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do electors have to do with this.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand how a brokered convention works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.
> 
> Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.
Click to expand...


So, forget about the 12th Amendment?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do electors have to do with this.
> 
> You're alluding to an argument. Just make your case for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand how a brokered convention works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.
> 
> Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, forget about the 12th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.

Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?

A political party nomination and the election of a president are two different things. They even happen at different times. Do you really not get this?


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand how a brokered convention works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.
> 
> Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, forget about the 12th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.
> 
> Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?
Click to expand...


I'm going to talk to the wall now.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please present your argument for whatever point you're trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.
> 
> Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, forget about the 12th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.
> 
> Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to talk to the wall now.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the wall will inform you that electors don't vote in a political party convention. Because it seems to be a point that you missed.

Political party conventions are not a constitutional process. They have nothing to do with the constitution. Its a private political organization determining who will represent that organization in an election.

The constitution plays no role in that private organizations determinations of its own leadership or representation.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republican presidential nominee is the result of a brokered convention, and a second ballot is presented, I'm sure you are aware that the delegates can vote as they please; therefore, nullifying we the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.
> 
> Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, forget about the 12th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.
> 
> Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to talk to the wall now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps the wall will inform you that electors don't vote in a political party convention. Because it seems to be a point that you missed.
> 
> Political party conventions are not a constitutional process. They have nothing to do with the constitution. Its a private political organization determining who will represent that organization in an election.
> 
> The constitution plays no role in that private organizations determinations of its own leadership or representation.
Click to expand...


Good luck to ya.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an agreement made between sovereign independent states. That's what a treaty is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.
> 
> Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.
> 
> Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying that explicit language is my standard, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.
> 
> If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
Click to expand...


Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> A republican nomination isn't a constitutional process. Its a political party process. A private function that uses whatever methodology that the political party wishes.
> 
> Thus, it has nothing to do with 'we the people'. Its constitutionally irrelevant. You might as well be complaining about how an American Idol finalist is selected for as much constitutional relevance as it has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, forget about the 12th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.
> 
> Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to talk to the wall now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps the wall will inform you that electors don't vote in a political party convention. Because it seems to be a point that you missed.
> 
> Political party conventions are not a constitutional process. They have nothing to do with the constitution. Its a private political organization determining who will represent that organization in an election.
> 
> The constitution plays no role in that private organizations determinations of its own leadership or representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck to ya.
Click to expand...


Shrugs....I don't know what to tell you. You fundamentally misunderstood what a political party convention is. 

I'll give you a hint: its got jack shit to do with Electors. All conventions are done for months by the time the first Elector is even seated.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. Show us any language in the constitution that indicates the constitution is a 'treaty'.
> 
> Its simple: your standards apply to you. And your argument can't meet your own standards. Meaning that even by your own standards, your argument is meaningless.
> 
> Surely you can understand why I don't have much use for it.
> 
> Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
> 
> Yet when I note that you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates that the states are 'nations' or that the constitution is a 'international treaty'.......suddenly your standard doesn't exist anymore. And you can't remember it ever existing.
> 
> If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
Click to expand...


It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, forget about the 12th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.
> 
> Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to talk to the wall now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps the wall will inform you that electors don't vote in a political party convention. Because it seems to be a point that you missed.
> 
> Political party conventions are not a constitutional process. They have nothing to do with the constitution. Its a private political organization determining who will represent that organization in an election.
> 
> The constitution plays no role in that private organizations determinations of its own leadership or representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck to ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....I don't know what to tell you. You fundamentally misunderstood what a political party convention is.
> 
> I'll give you a hint: its got jack shit to do with Electors. All conventions are done for months by the time the first Elector is even seated.
Click to expand...


Will you be taking your how on the road?


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
Click to expand...


Who were the people?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electors don't vote in political party nominations. And the 12th amendment makes no mention of political party delegates.
> 
> Did you forget to read the 12th amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to talk to the wall now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps the wall will inform you that electors don't vote in a political party convention. Because it seems to be a point that you missed.
> 
> Political party conventions are not a constitutional process. They have nothing to do with the constitution. Its a private political organization determining who will represent that organization in an election.
> 
> The constitution plays no role in that private organizations determinations of its own leadership or representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck to ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shrugs....I don't know what to tell you. You fundamentally misunderstood what a political party convention is.
> 
> I'll give you a hint: its got jack shit to do with Electors. All conventions are done for months by the time the first Elector is even seated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you be taking your how on the road?
Click to expand...


Do you seriously not understand that Electors don't vote in political party conventions?

See, cause proceeds effect. The electors (your 'cause') are seated and vote AFTER your effect (brokered republican convention).

Your understanding of this process is literally contradicted by physics. You've confused delegates and electors.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who were the people?
Click to expand...


The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who were the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.
Click to expand...


Did it include blacks, women and Indians?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the quote of me saying, "Explicit language is my standard"? As I said before, I don't ever recall saying that explicit language is my standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that the states were independent, sovereign states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't consider that a treaty, I don't really care all that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, none of this is relevant to my original point, which was that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
Click to expand...


The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously. And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who were the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it include blacks, women and Indians?
Click to expand...


Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You used the ' cite any language in the constitution that indicates' standard. Which your argument fails.
> 
> They were. Not anymore. The sovereign is the Several States. With their agent being the Federal Government.
> 
> Apparently the founders didn't care either. As they never called the constitution a treaty.
> 
> That would be you, citing yourself. And no one really cares.
> 
> With the States being agents of the people. With 'We the People of the United States' being the creators of the Constitution, using these agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
Click to expand...


The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.



> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.



The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
Click to expand...


Yes, they cited the people of their states. Each delegate represented and spoke for the people of his state, thus he could speak as/for the people of his state. The delegate from, for example, Pennsylvania felt he could speak for the people of Pennsylvania. 

So the delegates wrote the constitution, and the states ratified it, thus establishing it between each of the ratifying states.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who were the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it include blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
Click to expand...


Did you say yes and no?


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each state being the agent of the people of that particular state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign, independent states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
Click to expand...


Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it include blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you say yes and no?
Click to expand...


I said yes at a 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they cited the people of their states.
Click to expand...


No, they cited the People of the United States. 



> Each delegate represented and spoke for the people of his state, thus he could speak as/for the people of his state. The delegate from, for example, Pennsylvania felt he could speak for the people of Pennsylvania.
> 
> So the delegates wrote the constitution, and the states ratified it, thus establishing it between each of the ratifying states.



The delegates operated as agents for the States. While the States were agents of the people. And the People of the United States created the constitution. With the threshold of ratification described in Article 7.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the Constitution created by We the People of the United States. Using States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
Click to expand...


Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it include blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you say yes and no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said yes at a 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
Click to expand...


Are you able to expound upon your answer?
Was a percentage of blacks, women and Indians included?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the several states. Specifically, the people of a significant majority of States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it include blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you say yes and no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said yes at a 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you able to expound upon your answer?
> Was a percentage of blacks, women and Indians included?
Click to expand...


3/5ths, 100%, 0%.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
Click to expand...


How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it include blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you say yes and no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said yes at a 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you able to expound upon your answer?
> Was a percentage of blacks, women and Indians included?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3/5ths, 100%, 0%.
Click to expand...


I'll keep guessing.
No blacks, no women, and no Indians were included in we the people?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
Click to expand...


The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, at 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you say yes and no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said yes at a 3/5ths ratio, yes, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you able to expound upon your answer?
> Was a percentage of blacks, women and Indians included?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3/5ths, 100%, 0%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll keep guessing.
> No blacks, no women, and no Indians were included in we the people?
Click to expand...

Nope. 3/5ths, 100%, 0%.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
Click to expand...


They represented the blacks and women?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
Click to expand...


Yup. And non-land owners too. All In accordance with the law and constitution.


----------



## Lilah

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
Click to expand...


Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly represented we the people?  Who represented the blacks, women and Indians (who by the way were not citizens?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?
Click to expand...


Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either. In fact of the groups that you cited, only Indians are mentioned specifically.

To exclude them if they aren't paying taxes.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally? Their elected representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either.
Click to expand...


Checkmate!


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they represent the blacks, women and Indians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Checkmate!
Click to expand...


Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.

By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way they did every one else: in accordance with the law and constitution. With Indians not being represented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.
> 
> By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.
Click to expand...


Were slaves and women paying taxes?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> They represented the blacks and women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.
> 
> By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were slaves and women paying taxes?
Click to expand...


Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were. 

Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link where in the Constitution blacks and women are mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.
> 
> By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were slaves and women paying taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were.
> 
> Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.
Click to expand...


Puhleeze, take your word for it.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And nowhere where men are mentioned either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.
> 
> By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were slaves and women paying taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were.
> 
> Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhleeze, take your word for it.
Click to expand...


Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.

You have read the constitution, yes?


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.
> 
> By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were slaves and women paying taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were.
> 
> Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhleeze, take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.
> 
> You have read the constitution, yes?
Click to expand...


What do think?


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. As 'people' include anyone who isn't excluded. Which Indians who weren't paying taxes were.
> 
> By your logic, 'white men' weren't part of 'we the people'. As they're never mentioned either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were slaves and women paying taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were.
> 
> Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhleeze, take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.
> 
> You have read the constitution, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do think?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you never have. As your comments about electors don't demonstrate much understanding of how the constitution works.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were slaves and women paying taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were.
> 
> Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Puhleeze, take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.
> 
> You have read the constitution, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you never have. As your comments about electors don't demonstrate much understanding of how the constitution works.
Click to expand...


I just wiped the floor with you.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And often. But they're not excluded if they aren't paying taxes. Indians were.
> 
> Don't take my word for it. Read the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puhleeze, take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.
> 
> You have read the constitution, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you never have. As your comments about electors don't demonstrate much understanding of how the constitution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just wiped the floor with you.
Click to expand...


Nope. You confused delegates for the republican convention with electors for the electoral college.

That's a rather embarrassing blunder you made.

As far as 'representation', read Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. It affirms everything I've said.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the states and ratified by the states. Each state, of course, is the agent of the people of that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they cited the people of their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they cited the People of the United States.
Click to expand...


Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.



> Each delegate represented and spoke for the people of his state, thus he could speak as/for the people of his state. The delegate from, for example, Pennsylvania felt he could speak for the people of Pennsylvania.
> 
> So the delegates wrote the constitution, and the states ratified it, thus establishing it between each of the ratifying states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates operated as agents for the States. While the States were agents of the people. And the People of the United States created the constitution. With the threshold of ratification described in Article 7.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'We the Delegates'. It said 'We the People of the United States'. The People are the principle. The States are their agent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they cited the people of their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they cited the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.
Click to expand...


They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.

As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.



> Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.



Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates were speaking for the people of their states, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states that ratified it. Had any of the states not ratified it, that state wouldn't have been in the new union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they cited the people of their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they cited the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.
> 
> As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.
Click to expand...


Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates didn't cite themselves as the creators of the constitution. They cited the People of the United States.
> 
> The States agents of We the People. Just as the Federal government is the agents of the Several States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they cited the people of their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they cited the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.
> 
> As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.
Click to expand...


_"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."

I think you put it better right there.


----------



## Lilah

Skylar said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Puhleeze, take your word for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.
> 
> You have read the constitution, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you never have. As your comments about electors don't demonstrate much understanding of how the constitution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just wiped the floor with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You confused delegates for the republican convention with electors for the electoral college.
> 
> That's a rather embarrassing blunder you made.
> 
> As far as 'representation', read Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. It affirms everything I've said.
Click to expand...


Nothing affirms anything you said.


----------



## Skylar

Lilah said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the constitution. Its right there. All you have to do is read it.
> 
> You have read the constitution, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you never have. As your comments about electors don't demonstrate much understanding of how the constitution works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just wiped the floor with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. You confused delegates for the republican convention with electors for the electoral college.
> 
> That's a rather embarrassing blunder you made.
> 
> As far as 'representation', read Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. It affirms everything I've said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing affirms anything you said.
Click to expand...


Really? So where does the constitution state that Electors vote in political party conventions?

And of course, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 says this:



> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.



Which is what I claimed.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they cited the people of their states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cited the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.
> 
> As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."
> 
> I think you put it better right there.
Click to expand...


Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they cited the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.
> 
> As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."
> 
> I think you put it better right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.
Click to expand...


The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, each of the delegates spoke for the people of one of the united states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.
> 
> As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution. The people of each united state sent delegates to a convention, where the constitution was drafted, and then the people of each united state ratified it, establishing it between their respective states. However, had the people of any united state chosen not to ratify it, the constitution would not apply to their state or them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."
> 
> I think you put it better right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.
Click to expand...


And the constitution was established between their respective states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't say 'We the Delegates of the States'. They said 'We the People of the United States'.
> 
> As it was 'we the people' that created the constitution using the States as their agents.
> 
> Then we agree.....the People of the United States created the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."
> 
> I think you put it better right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between their respective states.
Click to expand...


With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution. 

We can do this all day.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the people of those of the united states that ratified the constitution established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."
> 
> I think you put it better right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution.
> 
> We can do this all day.
Click to expand...


Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Yes, I agree. The people of the united states created the constitution_."
> 
> I think you put it better right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution.
> 
> We can do this all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?
Click to expand...


Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they established the constitution between their respective states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution.
> 
> We can do this all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?
Click to expand...


Yes. They were a member under the articles.

And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island? They didn't represent the people of all of the united states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people of the united States created the Constitution using the states as their agents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between their respective states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution.
> 
> We can do this all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were a member under the articles.
> 
> And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island?
Click to expand...


Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the constitution was established between their respective states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution.
> 
> We can do this all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were a member under the articles.
> 
> And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
Click to expand...


But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the respective States being agents of the people....who created the Constitution.
> 
> We can do this all day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were a member under the articles.
> 
> And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
Click to expand...


The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the person who penned the words "We the people of the united states" speaking for the people of the state of Rhode Island?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were a member under the articles.
> 
> And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
Click to expand...


So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the people of Rhode Island part of the United States at the time of its writing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were a member under the articles.
> 
> And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
Click to expand...


We the People_ of the United States. _

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution. 

Again, what is your point?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were a member under the articles.
> 
> And by what authority could delegates who wrote the constitution claim to speak for the people of rhode island?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
Click to expand...


The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

So "we the people of the united states" was not necessarily a true statement, is it? They should have written "we the people of some of the united states".


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
Click to expand...

The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.

Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?

Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:

Not you.


----------



## Centinel

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratification of the Constitution by the people of Rhodes Island obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?
> 
> Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:
> 
> Not you.
Click to expand...


You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up. 

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?
> 
> Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.
> 
> The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
Click to expand...


The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

You say that the Constitution didn't have the authority to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. The People of Rhodes Island obviously disagreed by ratifying the Constitution.

And the People of Rhodes Island trump you on what has the authority to represent the People of Rhodes Island.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?
> 
> Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.
> 
> The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.
> 
> A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?
> 
> Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.
> 
> The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.
> 
> A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.
Click to expand...


The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We the People_ of the United States. _
> 
> And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.
> 
> Again, what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?
> 
> Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.
> 
> The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.
> 
> A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.
Click to expand...


As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.
> 
> So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?
> 
> Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:
> 
> Not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.
> 
> The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.
> 
> A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?
Click to expand...


I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution. 

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.
> 
> The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.
> 
> A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.
> 
> And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?
Click to expand...


Of course I'm not saying that. 

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.
> 
> A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.
> 
> And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not saying that.
> 
> My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?
Click to expand...


When have I ever said this?

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents. 

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.
> 
> And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not saying that.
> 
> My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ever said this?
Click to expand...


I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.



> I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.
> 
> Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?



No, I'm not.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.
> 
> And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not saying that.
> 
> My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ever said this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.
> 
> Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
Click to expand...


Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.
> 
> And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not saying that.
> 
> My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ever said this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.
> 
> Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.
Click to expand...


No, we don't agree. 

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.
> 
> And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.
> 
> Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not saying that.
> 
> My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ever said this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.
> 
> Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree.
> 
> My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.
Click to expand...


Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing. 
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:



> 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.



The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not saying that.
> 
> My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever said this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.
> 
> Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree.
> 
> My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
> With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.
Click to expand...


My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever said this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.
> 
> Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree.
> 
> My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
> With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
Click to expand...


So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States. 

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree.
> 
> My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
> With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.
> 
> And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.
> 
> You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.
Click to expand...


I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference. 

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people. 

However, none of this has anything to do with my initial, and as yet unrefuted, claim that the constitution was established between the states. It is an interstate (or international, if you choose) agreement.


----------



## skye

dblack said:


> Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.




ok let's talk

for Hussein Obama this is the meaning..........


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree.
> 
> My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
> With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.
> 
> And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.
> 
> You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.
> 
> I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.
Click to expand...


There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  An individual person has never had that authority.

You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?

The people, like the States.....exercise their authority over their agent through the critical threshold of the relevant majority. Not as an individual.



> However, none of this has anything to do with my initial, and as yet unrefuted, claim that the constitution was established between the states. It is an interstate (or international, if you choose) agreement.



The States are merely agents of the people, as you've admitted. And it was the people that created the Constitution using their agents.

"We the people' are actual people. Not stand ins for States. Its the States that are stand ins for people.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree.
> 
> My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
> With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.
> 
> And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.
> 
> You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.
> 
> I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  And individual person has never had that authority.
> 
> You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?
Click to expand...


You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution. 



> However, none of this has anything to do with my initial, and as yet unrefuted, claim that the constitution was established between the states. It is an interstate (or international, if you choose) agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The States are merely agents of the people, as you've admitted. And it was the people that created the Constitution using their agents.
> 
> "We the people' are actual people. Not stand ins for States.
Click to expand...


Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
> With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:
> 
> The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.
> 
> And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.
> 
> You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.
> 
> I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  And individual person has never had that authority.
> 
> You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.
Click to expand...


I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.

If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.

But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.

There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.



> Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.



With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.

We can run this loop as often as you'd like.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.
> 
> And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.
> 
> You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.
> 
> I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  And individual person has never had that authority.
> 
> You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.
> 
> If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.
> 
> But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.
> 
> There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.
> 
> We can run this loop as often as you'd like.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.
> 
> And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.
> 
> You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.
> 
> I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  And individual person has never had that authority.
> 
> You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.
> 
> If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.
> 
> But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.
> 
> There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.
> 
> We can run this loop as often as you'd like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...


When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.

The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

And can we take it from your complete abandonment of your conception of the principal agent relationship that you recognize your argument breaks when applied consistently?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.
> 
> I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  And individual person has never had that authority.
> 
> You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.
> 
> If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.
> 
> But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.
> 
> There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.
> 
> We can run this loop as often as you'd like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.
> 
> The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
Click to expand...


Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in.  And individual person has never had that authority.
> 
> You imagined it.  Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.
> 
> If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.
> 
> But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.
> 
> There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.
> 
> We can run this loop as often as you'd like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I
> I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.
> 
> The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it. 

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.
> 
> If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.
> 
> But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.
> 
> There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.
> 
> We can run this loop as often as you'd like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I
> I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.
> 
> The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.
> 
> I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.
Click to expand...


It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people. 

And the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. *And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. *As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.
> 
> If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.
> 
> But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.
> 
> There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.
> 
> With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.
> 
> We can run this loop as often as you'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.
> 
> The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.
> 
> I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states.
Click to expand...

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

And you admit that We the People are the People of the United States. 

And you admit that the People of Rhodes Island recognize the constitution as having the authority to speak for them......as they ratified the document. 

And you won't touch your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship with a 10 foot pole.

That's progress!


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.
> 
> The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.
> 
> I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
Click to expand...


No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states. 



> And you won't touch your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship with a 10 foot pole.



My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.
> 
> The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.
> 
> I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.
Click to expand...


Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.

*The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. *Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.

With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.



> My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.



Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.

......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.

.....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are _the People of the United States._


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.
> 
> I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.
> 
> *The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. *Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.
> 
> With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.
> 
> ......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.
> 
> .....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are _the People of the United States._
Click to expand...


None of which refutes the fact that the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.
> 
> I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.
> 
> *The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. *Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.
> 
> With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.
> 
> ......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.
> 
> .....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are _the People of the United States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which refutes the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
Click to expand...


Strawman. When did I ever say it did? 

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States.* All of which you've already admitted. *

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> ......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.





Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.
> 
> And the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.
> 
> *The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. *Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.
> 
> With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.
> 
> ......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.
> 
> .....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are _the People of the United States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which refutes the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman. When did I ever say it did?
Click to expand...


I don't recall saying you said anything.



> I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States.* All of which you've already admitted.*
> 
> So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.



I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

My original point, which has yet to be refuted, was that the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.
> 
> We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also incorrect.
> 
> It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.
Click to expand...


This, to me, is the most interesting aspect of the current conceptions of "We the People". The idea that the people and their government are one in the same is a common theme among those who invoke the phrase as a rallying cry for democratic government. In my view, they mistake "the majority of the people" for "we the people". They make the unquestioned assumption that if majority wills it, it should be so.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Strawman. When did I ever say it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying you said anything.
Click to expand...


Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that _no one is claiming to refute_? 

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?


> I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States.* All of which you've already admitted.*
> 
> So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.
Click to expand...


So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. When did I ever say it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying you said anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that _no one is claiming to refute_?
> 
> This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.
> 
> But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States.* All of which you've already admitted.*
> 
> So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.
> 
> Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?
> 
> With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.
Click to expand...


The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. When did I ever say it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying you said anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that _no one is claiming to refute_?
> 
> This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.
> 
> But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States.* All of which you've already admitted.*
> 
> So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.
> 
> Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?
> 
> With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.
Click to expand...


Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. When did I ever say it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying you said anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?
> 
> This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.
> 
> But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.
> 
> So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.
> 
> Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?
> 
> With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.
Click to expand...


It doesn't. 

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

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. When did I ever say it did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying you said anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?
> 
> This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.
> 
> But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.
> 
> So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.
> 
> Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?
> 
> With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution *between the States* so ratifying the Same."
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
Click to expand...


Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned. 

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying you said anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?
> 
> This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.
> 
> But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.
> 
> Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?
> 
> With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.
> 
> So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?
Click to expand...


It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty. 

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?
> 
> This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.
> 
> But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
> So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.
> 
> Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?
> 
> With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.
> 
> So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
Click to expand...


So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.

But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.
> 
> So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.
> 
> But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?
Click to expand...


It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.
> 
> So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.
> 
> But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.
Click to expand...


Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.

And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.
> 
> So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.
> 
> But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.
> 
> And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.
Click to expand...


So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.
> 
> So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.
> 
> But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.
> 
> And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?
Click to expand...


I'm saying, quite clearly....*that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.*  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.
> 
> The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.
> 
> But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.
> 
> And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying, quite clearly....*that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.*  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.
Click to expand...


Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.
> 
> But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.
> 
> And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying, quite clearly....*that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.*  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.
Click to expand...


Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it. 

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.
> 
> And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying, quite clearly....*that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.*  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
Click to expand...


It doesn't say that. It says between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.
> 
> And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying, quite clearly....*that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.*  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
Click to expand...


Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution. 

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.
> 
> See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.
Click to expand...


I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it.  If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.
> 
> See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
Click to expand...


Your characterization is your own argument. Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation. 

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.
> 
> See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your characterization is your own argument.
Click to expand...


It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it. 



> Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.



It doesn't say that. It says "the states".


----------



## Skylar

Centinel said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.
> 
> See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your characterization is your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.
Click to expand...


Nor the law, history, the courts, the founders.....anyone really.



> Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says "the states".
Click to expand...


No, it most definitely says 'We the People of the United States'. The States were merely the agents the people used.

And you've already admitted that the States are nothing more than the agents of the people. Thus, the people created the Constitution, the States, the Federal Government, all of it.


----------



## Centinel

Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.
> 
> See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your characterization is your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor the law, history, the courts, the founders.....anyone really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says "the states".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it most definitely says 'We the People of the United States'. The States were merely the agents the people used.
> 
> And you've already admitted that the States are nothing more than the agents of the people. Thus, the people created the Constitution, the States, the Federal Government, all of it.
Click to expand...




Skylar said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says between the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.
> 
> See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your characterization is your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor the law, history, the courts, the founders.....anyone really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.
> 
> And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. It says "the states".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it most definitely says 'We the People of the United States'. The States were merely the agents the people used.
> 
> And you've already admitted that the States are nothing more than the agents of the people. Thus, the people created the Constitution, the States, the Federal Government, all of it.
Click to expand...


No, it says "established between the states".


----------



## Tennyson

The Constitution was a compact between the states and the preamble did not alter the Constitution being a compact between the states. Far too much emphasis is placed on the preamble to the Constitution and far too much is read into it.

The preamble was to read exactly as the preamble to the Articles of Confederation and the delegates created a preamble that copied the preamble of the Articles of Confederation. The first draft of the Constitution with a preamble that mirrored the Articles of Confederation was submitted by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787:

We, the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

“We the people” did not change the meaning or intent of the preamble submitted on August 6, 1787.

As the Philadelphia convention was coming to a close, several states would not commit to ratifying the Constitution, and Rhode Island did not even attend the convention. If the preamble submitted on August 6, 1787, were used, then if only one state did not ratify the Constitution, then a constitutional amendment would be required to remove the state that not ratify, and a constitutional amendment would be required each time a territory became a state.

In the Committee of Style, Gouverneur Morris remedied this issue by re-wording the preamble to its current language. Morris did this without consulting the delegates, and it caused an uproar of the delegates, and at the state’s ratifying conventions. Morris used the social contract theories of Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and the Iroquois's Great Law of Peace to craft the preamble. No one was under the impression that it was a compact created and approved by the people. Article VII could have dictated a popular statewide vote to cause the Constitution to be ratified by the people, but it did not. One example is the North Carolina ratifying convention on July 24, 1788:

Mr. Caldwell:

Mr. Chairman, if they mean, _We, the people,_--the people at large,--I conceive the expression is improper. Were not they who framed this Constitution the representatives of the legislatures of the different states? In my opinion, they had no power, from the people at large, to use their name, or to act for them. They were not delegated for that purpose.​
At the start of the convention, there was a dramatic and tone setting debate regarding the terms “national” and “federation.” Federation won as it was a league of states entering into a compact to give up a very limited set of state powers to the new federal, not national, government. Madison, Jefferson, the delegates at the Philadelphia convention, and the state ratifying conventions referred to the Constitution as a “compact” or a constitutional compact.


----------

