Constitutional Convention?

[Centinel]

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision. Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?” Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it. The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision. Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?” Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it. The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

That would not happen, either.

 

[Centinel]

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision. Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?” Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it. The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

 

[Skylar]

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision. Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?” Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it. The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

 

[Centinel]

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision. Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?” Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it. The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. I contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

 

[Skylar]

All of the nation’s constitutional history and constitutional rights would be vulnerable to alteration and revision. Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “I would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come of it?” Statement Issued by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and USAction Opposing A Constitutional Convention

Congress would refuse, SCOTUS would agree, and that would be the end of it. The Jon Bezerks of the nation have no power in forcing this to happen.

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

 

[Centinel]

Or those sovereign states who wished could simply exit the union and then establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Skylar has definitively answered you.

 

[Skylar]

That would not happen, either.

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

 

[Skylar]

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Skylar has definitively answered you.

Thoroughly. But in the realm of 'legal possibility', what I've quoted or haven't have no relevance. As our debates have no impact on any legal outcomes.

 

[Centinel]

It's certainly a legal possibility. If states become disenchanted with their current membership in the union, they could certainly exit the union and, being sovereign states, establish any treaty they wished between themselves.

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

And that law contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. After having been offered several opportunities, you are incapable of quoting the relevant language in the law that would prohibit a state from leaving the union.

 

[Skylar]

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

With the authority to intepret the constitution delegated to the Judiciary in the Judicial Power.

And they've ruled on this issue. That you disagree with their ruling has no relevance on its authority or the outcome of any case based on that ruling. Negating any claim of 'legal possibility'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

And that law contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. After having been offered several opportunities, you are incapable of quoting the relevant language in the law that would prohibit a state from leaving the union.

Keep saying, "if I wish on a star," centinel.

 

[Skylar]

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

And that law contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. After having been offered several opportunities, you are incapable of quoting the relevant language in the law that would prohibit a state from leaving the union.

Keep saying, "if I wish on a star," centinel.

Centinel straight up ignored James Madison, insisting he knew better. Its hardly surprising that he's argue that the Supreme Court is overruled by his opinion.

Alas, it still has nothing to do with the outcome of any case. As caselaw based on the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court decide it.

Ignoring caselaw isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The so-called 'constitutionalists' do not under or jurisprudence.

 

[Skylar]

The so-called 'constitutionalists' do not under or jurisprudence.

Nope. They genuinely believe that the courts, law and nation are bound to whatever they imagine.

Alas, the courts, law and nation have a very different take on the matter.

 

[Centinel]

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

With the authority to intepret the constitution delegated to the Judiciary in the Judicial Power.

And they've ruled on this issue. That you disagree with their ruling has no relevance on its authority or the outcome of any case based on that ruling. Negating any claim of 'legal possibility'.

Still noting your failure to cite the language in the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

With the authority to intepret the constitution delegated to the Judiciary in the Judicial Power.

And they've ruled on this issue. That you disagree with their ruling has no relevance on its authority or the outcome of any case based on that ruling. Negating any claim of 'legal possibility'.

Still noting your failure to cite the language in the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

We've had that discussion. You ignored the Preamble, the Supremacy Clause, James Madison, your own conception of the Principal-Agent relationship, and more than 2 centuries of explicit contradiction of your assumptions.

And your willful ignorance is still gloriously irrelevant to the validity of any Supreme Court ruling. As it doesn't matter what is cited by me or ignored by you.

The matter is still settled caselaw. Thus there is no such 'legal possibility'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except that they can't.

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

And that law contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. After having been offered several opportunities, you are incapable of quoting the relevant language in the law that would prohibit a state from leaving the union.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land.

 

[Skylar]

Article I, section 10 contains the prohibitions on the states. There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union.

The Supreme Court already ruled on the issue. No, they can't.

You can certainly debate what you think the constitution is supposed to mean. But as a matter of law, its settled. There is no such 'legal possibility'.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, Feel free to point out the language in it that prohibits a state from leaving the union.

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. In our system of law the judicial power rests with the Federal Judiciary. With a Supreme Court at its head.

They've ruled on this issue.

Debates on the merits of various constitutional interpretations are all well and good. But when you start talking about 'legal possibility', you've entered the realm of actual law in the real world. And your personal interpretations (or mine, for that matter) have no particular relevance. The body of case law does.

That you disagree with the Supreme Court is gloriously irrelevant to the authority of their ruling.

Of course my interpretations of the constitution aren't the supreme law of the land. Nobody's are. The constitution itself is the supreme law of the land.

And that law contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. After having been offered several opportunities, you are incapable of quoting the relevant language in the law that would prohibit a state from leaving the union.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land.

You should note that Cent is the same soul who insisted that each individual person has the power to secede themselves and their land from the United States.

So you're not exactly dealing with someone who gives a fiddler's fuck about any real world application or basis of their assumptions.