Constitutional Convention?

[JakeStarkey]

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

You are trolling because you don't understand this subject.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cent is a sovereign citizen nut? He must be posting from jail.

 

[Skylar]

Cent is a sovereign citizen nut? He must be posting from jail.

Nah, just from irrelevance.

 

[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.

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.

Absolutely wrong.

"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 constitution, not the supreme court's opinions.

 

[Centinel]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

they often try to use texas vs white

but that was a bond issue

 

[JakeStarkey]

From Article III: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Cent, I am glad you posted the part about the states being subordinate to the Constitution. The final court on all matters constitutional is SCOTUS, your immoral stubbornness not withstanding.

 

[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.

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.

Absolutely wrong.

"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 constitution, not the supreme court's opinions.

The Constitution....according to who? Lets take a look at Federalist paper 78 on that issue:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

I know you want to believe that your personal opinion on the Constitution overrides the Supreme Court, James Madison, and our entire body of laws. But as more than 2 centuries of the irrelevance of your assumptions demonstrates elegantly....

...its just not so.

And the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. Your disagreement with their ruling has no relevance on the authority of that ruling, or its applicability. Nor does your opinion have the slightest effect on the outcome of any actual case.

Their rulings do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

they often try to use texas vs white but that was a bond issue

In part, yes, but not a defense.

The Supreme Court rejected the bondholders' arguments. Chief Justice salmon p. chase, in his majority opinion, held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Once a territory gained admission to the Union as a state, its relationship to the Union was perpetual and indissoluble unless terminated by revolution or consent of the states. Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were still citizens of the United States. Texas v. White

 

[Skylar]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

 

[Skylar]

they often try to use texas vs white but that was a bond issue

In part, yes, but not a defense.

The Supreme Court rejected the bondholders' arguments. Chief Justice salmon p. chase, in his majority opinion, held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Once a territory gained admission to the Union as a state, its relationship to the Union was perpetual and indissoluble unless terminated by revolution or consent of the states. Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were still citizens of the United States. Texas v. White

Yes, but they run headlong into the same self referential fallacy that plagues their perspective from the beginning. With the applicablity of a Supreme Court ruling being predicated on their opinion. Just like the validity of a Supreme Court ruling is based on their opinion of it. To them anyway.

Its a perfect circle of pseudo-legal gibberish. Where all law, court rulings, and caselaw is dependent what whatever they make up.....in their imagination.

Alas, the *actual* law and *actual* courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about their opinions or imagination. Nor do they have any relevance to the outcome of any court case. Which is where their arguments always break when we speak of real world outcomes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

they often try to use texas vs white but that was a bond issue

In part, yes, but not a defense.

The Supreme Court rejected the bondholders' arguments. Chief Justice salmon p. chase, in his majority opinion, held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Once a territory gained admission to the Union as a state, its relationship to the Union was perpetual and indissoluble unless terminated by revolution or consent of the states. Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were still citizens of the United States. Texas v. White

Yes, but they run headlong into the same self referential fallacy that plagues their perspective from the beginning. With the applicablity of a Supreme Court ruling being predicated on their opinion. Just like the validity of a Supreme Court ruling is based on their opinion of it. To them anyway.

Its a perfect circle of pseudo-legal gibberish. Where all law, court rulings, and caselaw is dependent what whatever they make up.....in their imagination.

Alas, the *actual* law and *actual* courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about their opinions or imagination. Nor do they have any relevance to the outcome of any court case. Which is where their arguments always break when we speak of real world outcomes.

And they troll on forever because they have nothing else.

 

[Skylar]

they often try to use texas vs white but that was a bond issue

In part, yes, but not a defense.

The Supreme Court rejected the bondholders' arguments. Chief Justice salmon p. chase, in his majority opinion, held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Once a territory gained admission to the Union as a state, its relationship to the Union was perpetual and indissoluble unless terminated by revolution or consent of the states. Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were still citizens of the United States. Texas v. White

Yes, but they run headlong into the same self referential fallacy that plagues their perspective from the beginning. With the applicablity of a Supreme Court ruling being predicated on their opinion. Just like the validity of a Supreme Court ruling is based on their opinion of it. To them anyway.

Its a perfect circle of pseudo-legal gibberish. Where all law, court rulings, and caselaw is dependent what whatever they make up.....in their imagination.

Alas, the *actual* law and *actual* courts don't give a fiddler's fuck about their opinions or imagination. Nor do they have any relevance to the outcome of any court case. Which is where their arguments always break when we speak of real world outcomes.

And they troll on forever because they have nothing else.

Well, when your opinion is the basis of your opinion, its turtles all the way down.

And the real world still doesn't give a fuck.

 

[Centinel]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

It's your argument that broke.

You claim that it is illegal for a state to exit the union, yet you can't point to the specific language in the law that makes it illegal. And neither can the supreme court.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

 

[Skylar]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

It's your argument that broke.

Nope. My argument worked perfectly.

Its also irrelevant how well my argument worked for your argument here. As your interpretations of the constitution have no impact nor bearing on the outcome of any court case. The rulings of the Supreme Court do. And they've already ruled on this issue, against your assumptions.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. And it still doesn't matter. As no court case is predicated on your opinions on the Constitution.

While every court is bound to the rulings of the Supreme Court. And any legal test will be based on actual case law. Not your personal opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's your argument that broke.

You claim that it is illegal for a state to exit the union, yet you can't point to the specific language in the law that makes it illegal. And neither can the supreme court.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

Listen, shortbus, , your interpretation has no merit, no foundation in case law, nothing "but what I think is right." It is not.

 

[Centinel]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

It's your argument that broke.

Nope. My argument worked perfectly.

Its also irrelevant how well my argument worked for your argument here. As your interpretations of the constitution have no impact nor bearing on the outcome of any court case. The rulings of the Supreme Court do. And they've already ruled on this issue, against your assumptions.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. And it still doesn't matter. As no court case is predicated on your opinions on the Constitution.

While every court is bound to the rulings of the Supreme Court. And any legal test will be based on actual case law. Not your personal opinion.

It's your argument that broke.

You claim that it is illegal for a state to exit the union, yet you can't point to the specific language in the law that makes it illegal. And neither can the supreme court.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

Listen, shortbus, , your interpretation has no merit, no foundation in case law, nothing "but what I think is right." It is not.

I'm not offering my interpretation of the constitution. I am simply pointing out what the constitution says. It contains no language making it against the law for a state to leave the union. That's not a matter of interpretation. It is a simple matter of fact and black letter law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

It's your argument that broke.

Nope. My argument worked perfectly.

Its also irrelevant how well my argument worked for your argument here. As your interpretations of the constitution have no impact nor bearing on the outcome of any court case. The rulings of the Supreme Court do. And they've already ruled on this issue, against your assumptions.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. And it still doesn't matter. As no court case is predicated on your opinions on the Constitution.

While every court is bound to the rulings of the Supreme Court. And any legal test will be based on actual case law. Not your personal opinion.

I'm not offering my interpretation of the constitution. I am simply pointing out what the constitution says. It contains no language making it against the law for a state to leave the union. That's not a matter of interpretation. It is a simple matter of fact and black letter law.

 

[Skylar]

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'.

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

It's your argument that broke.

Nope. My argument worked perfectly.

Its also irrelevant how well my argument worked for your argument here. As your interpretations of the constitution have no impact nor bearing on the outcome of any court case. The rulings of the Supreme Court do. And they've already ruled on this issue, against your assumptions.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. And it still doesn't matter. As no court case is predicated on your opinions on the Constitution.

While every court is bound to the rulings of the Supreme Court. And any legal test will be based on actual case law. Not your personal opinion.

I'm not offering my interpretation of the constitution.

Of course you are. The constitution makes no mention of the right to secede or that States remain complete sovereigns after ratifying the constitution. Those are both your interpretations. And you've been contradicted by James Madison, the Supreme Court and over 2 centuries of caselaw that involve *none* of your pseudo-legal preconceptions.

That *you* believe that no one has 'proven you wrong' doesn't matter. As far as the outcome of any court case is concerned, you're nobody. No court nor law bases their legal conclusions on your personal opinion.

They use caselaw. And it contradicts you.

 

[Centinel]

Feel free to cite whatever section of the supreme law of the land that prohibits a state from exiting the union.

Good luck.

We've had that conversation. Your argument broke.

Worse for your claims here, what I cited or what you ignored has no relevance on any Supreme Court ruling.

The matter is settled case law. And its the case law that will determine the outcome of legal challenges on the matter. Not your opinions on what the constitution is supposed to mean.

Its worth noting that the Supreme Court came to the EXACT same conclusion as James Madison on the same matter. And you ignored them both.

It's your argument that broke.

Nope. My argument worked perfectly.

Its also irrelevant how well my argument worked for your argument here. As your interpretations of the constitution have no impact nor bearing on the outcome of any court case. The rulings of the Supreme Court do. And they've already ruled on this issue, against your assumptions.

As I said, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. You and the supreme court have yet to prove otherwise.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. And it still doesn't matter. As no court case is predicated on your opinions on the Constitution.

While every court is bound to the rulings of the Supreme Court. And any legal test will be based on actual case law. Not your personal opinion.

I'm not offering my interpretation of the constitution.

Of course you are. The constitution makes no mention of the right to secede or that States remain complete sovereigns after ratifying the constitution. Those are both your interpretations. And you've been contradicted by James Madison, the Supreme Court and over 2 centuries of caselaw that involve *none* of your pseudo-legal preconceptions.

That *you* believe that no one has 'proven you wrong' doesn't matter. As far as the outcome of any court case is concerned, you're nobody. No court nor law bases their legal conclusions on your personal opinion.

They use caselaw. And it contradicts you.

The constitution contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. That's not an opinion or an interpretation. That's a fact.