Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.
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.
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.
Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.
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.
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.
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.
You don't seem to understand what the founders understood a state to be.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.
Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explicit language was your standard, yes? Don't tell me that you don't consider your standards as applying to you.....again?
You don't seem to understand what the founders understood a state to be.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'.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 said:So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.
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?
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.
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.
You disagree again. And? We both prioritize the same thing. We simply disagree on how to get there. What else is there to discuss?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh... I see. You're just trying to control the discussion. Sorry. Not your call.
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.
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.
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.
Oh... I see. You're just trying to control the discussion. Sorry. Not your call.
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.
Also incorrect.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.
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.
Also incorrect.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.
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?
Also incorrect.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.
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.
Also incorrect.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.
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?
The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
Also incorrect.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.
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?
The constitution has nothing to do with the Republican party or its methodology for picking a candidate.
So, out the window ...
