We the People

[Lilah]

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.

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 ...

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?

 

[Skylar]

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?

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

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.

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.

 

[Lilah]

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 ...

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?

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?

 

[Skylar]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[dblack]

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

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.

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.

Was Lincoln part of the government?

???

 

[Lilah]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Skylar]

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?

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?

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?

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

 

[Lilah]

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.

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.

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.

Electors

 

[Skylar]

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?

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?

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

Electors

Which are assigned by the States.

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

 

[Lilah]

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.

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.

Electors

Sandwich.

No thank you. I had sushi.

 

[Skylar]

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?

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

Electors

Sandwich.

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.

 

[Lilah]

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.

Electors

Sandwich.

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.

Do you understand how a brokered convention works?

 

[Skylar]

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

Electors

Sandwich.

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.

Do you understand how a brokered convention works?

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

 

[Lilah]

Electors

Sandwich.

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.

Do you understand how a brokered convention works?

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.

 

[Skylar]

Sandwich.

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.

Do you understand how a brokered convention works?

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.

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]

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:

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.

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.

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

 

[Skylar]

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:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Lilah]

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.

Do you understand how a brokered convention works?

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.

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?

 

[Skylar]

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?

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.

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?

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]

Do you understand how a brokered convention works?

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.

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?

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.