The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[JakeStarkey]

James clearly does not understand the 10th. But he is harmless, so let him putter along.

 

[James Everett]

Go back and read what I wrote, then compare it to Madison's comments, and show where I am opposed to what he wrote.

So,
Which is it JAKE? Is it your assertion that the States as agents of the people ratified, or the people via conventions ratified?
Was it an act of the State govts or an act of "We the people".
Think first, as this is an important question, and you are apt to stumble yet again.

 

[James Everett]

James clearly does not understand the 10th. But he is harmless, so let him putter along.

The tenth is clear in what it states, but by all means, you go ahead and tell us what you think it means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, you don't answer my questions, you make strange and unusual conclusions to matters clear cut and evident, and I find myself - somehow - unmoved. When you can discuss the points, we can talk. Meander around, and I will have fun at your expense.

 

[James Everett]

“The states voluntarily joined the Union, I think they had/have the right to voluntarily leave it.”

American citizens residing in the states may not have their citizenship taken from them against their will, nor can they be forced to leave their state of residence against their will, as the right of citizens to live wherever they so desire in the United States is fundamental.

An American is a citizen of the United States first and foremost, a resident of his state subordinate to that; as a consequence of the nature of American citizenship, a state may not leave the Union unilaterally.

You are incorrect, a citizen prior to the 14th was a citizen of his State, hence an American citizen, he was a State citizen first. YOUR SCOTUS rendered just such opinion.

The citizen has always held a dual federal and state citizenship. The citizens of the US used the states as their agents to ratify the Constitution.

JAKE,
Prior to YOUR 14th amendment, there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen. One was a citizen of the State wherein one resided, hence also an American citizen, NOT a U.S. Citizen, otherwise there would be no 14th amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such a foolish statement by you. We the People are the citizens of the United States. We used our states (not the states as independent, sovereign nations) to ratify our national charter.

Now show me where my interpretation differs from James Madison's statement.

 

[James Everett]

James, you don't answer my questions, you make strange and unusual conclusions to matters clear cut and evident, and I find myself - somehow - unmoved. When you can discuss the points, we can talk. Meander around, and I will have fun at your expense.

JAKE, what questions have you posed? By all means fire away, as yet I have seen no questions from you. Please cite them.

 

[James Everett]

Such a foolish statement by you. We the People are the citizens of the United States. We used our states (not the states as independent, sovereign nations) to ratify our national charter.

Now show me where my interpretation differs from James Madison's statement.

Again JAKE, prior to YOUR 14th there were no U.S. Citizens.
You are in opposition to Madison in that he stated it was the people acting in their highest authority who ratified YOUR CONstitution not the State governments, so I ask you which was it.... The people, or the State governments which ratified, if it was the State legislatures who ratified, then please cite the votes taken in those States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I said We the People used the states.

Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no appeal to ignorance of the legal fact, that the several and sovereign States ratified Article 4, Section 2 as States and not as the People.

 

[James Everett]

S

I said We the People used the states.

Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.

So, you say We the people used the States? A State is a mode of government by definition, so what you are stating is the people used their State governments to ratify YOUR CONstitution? Now can you please give the votes if the legislatures within each State since they were used by " We the people" to ratify?

 

[JakeStarkey]

S

I said We the People used the states.

Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.

So, you say We the people used the States? A State is a mode of government by definition, so what you are stating is the people used their State governments to ratify YOUR CONstitution? Now can you please give the votes if the legislatures within each State since they were used by " We the people" to ratify?

You have accepted that We the People used the states as their agents. You have no valid point to make, do you?

 

[James Everett]

S

I said We the People used the states.

Quote me accurately each time, or we will stop each time as I correct you until you get it right.

So, you say We the people used the States? A State is a mode of government by definition, so what you are stating is the people used their State governments to ratify YOUR CONstitution? Now can you please give the votes if the legislatures within each State since they were used by " We the people" to ratify?

You have accepted that We the People used the states as their agents. You have no valid point to make, do you?

No, JAKE, I have accepted nothing. I ask you several questions to which you have yet to respond. I do have a point to make wherein you will have been cornered with no real way out. Answer the questions, but be advised to think first.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you did when you answered my question. You accepted that We the People as citizens of the states and the nation (whether under Articles or under the Constitution) used the states as our agents. You, like Calhoun, try to stand this on its head, and fail like Calhoun, when you try.

You have no way out at all. Well, you did not from the first, so this is merely wack a mole or you

 

[James Everett]

Yes, you did when you answered my question. You accepted that We the People as citizens of the states and the nation (whether under Articles or under the Constitution) used the states as our agents. You, like Calhoun, try to stand this on its head, and fail like Calhoun, when you try.

You have no way out at all. Well, you did not from the first, so this is merely wack a mole or you

JAKE,
I never stated that the people ratified YOUR CONstitution, I asked you the question. Are you completely looney? Please show where I ever stated that the people or the State govts ratified YOUR CONstitution. I asked you the questions and thus far you have dodged them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.

Your argument is over. No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.

Mods, please close the thread.

 

[James Everett]

You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.

Your argument is over. No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.

Mods, please close the thread.

JAKE,
If I answered your question, then post what that answer was. I never answered that the people or the State governments ratified YOUR CONstitution. Again please post this affirmation that you state that I gave either way via answering your question, and then you answer that same question because it was I who posed it to you, and you have yet to answer it.

 

[Steinlight]

doesn't matter one way or another now

What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?

It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.

So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?

I am suggesting it was just as illegal for the CSA to secede as it was the thirteen colonies. So it is hypocritical to condemn one but defend the other.

 

[James Everett]

doesn't matter one way or another now

What's the point of discussing whether it was constitutional or not?

It wasn't legal for the 13 colonies to secede, no, but they did anyways. Discussing the "legality" of secession seems asinine.

So what you are asserting is that the U.S. Is NOT " a nation of laws"?

I am suggesting it was just as illegal for the CSA to secede as it was the thirteen colonies. So it is hypocritical to condemn one but defend the other.

I agree that such is and was hypocritical, however, secession was not illegal, or unlawful.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment is the reservation of each States powers not delegated to the Collective in union. No power was delegated to the collective of States in union to prevent a State from exercising it's reserved power to secede.
The U.S. CONstitution was only the supreme law of the land if there was a law, established wherein it would be supreme. No law or amendment was or is in existence to prevent secession. To establish such would be an admittance of the consolidation of the States into a single State, hence the destruction of the union.

 

[James Everett]

You HAVE answered my question the way I described above.

Your argument is over. No room exists, per the OP, for other pertinent questions.

Mods, please close the thread.

Good grief, JAKE, are you that over your head that you are begging the moderators to close the thread to bail you out again. How very pathetic.