Constitutional Convention?

[Skylar]

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.

Says you. Citing your interpretation of the Constitution. And you're nobody.

That's a fact.

And also the reason why your personal opinions have no relevance on the outcome of any court case. And thus don't translate into any 'legal possibility'.

 

[Centinel]

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.

Says you. Citing your interpretation of the Constitution. And you're nobody.

That's a fact.

And also the reason why your personal opinions have no relevance on the outcome of any court case. And thus don't translate into any 'legal possibility'.

Actually, says the constitution. It contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. You keep saying it does, yet you can't show the relevant language. You've had dozens of opportunities to prove me wrong, yet you continue to be impotent to do so.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

Says you. Citing your interpretation of the Constitution. And you're nobody.

That's a fact.

And also the reason why your personal opinions have no relevance on the outcome of any court case. And thus don't translate into any 'legal possibility'.

Actually, says the constitution.

The constitution never so much as mentions secession, or concludes that a State is still sovereign after ratifying the constitution.

That's you citing you. And you're nobody.

Again, your personal opinion has no relevance to the outcome of any court case. Case law does. And caselaw contradicts you.

And 'poof', your imagination about 'legal possibility' vanishes like a fart in the wind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

centinel has every right to believe wrongly that a state can leave the Union

it can't

 

[12icer]

Therefore is it your feeling that The floating around story about request of Alaska, and Hawaii to the UN are useless? As far s the Supreme court there are quite a few ways to find out what they are bound to review, and what they are barred from reviewing. As far as opinions, you are definitely out of your element lost in the sky.

 

[Skylar]

Therefore is it your feeling that The floating around story about request of Alaska, and Hawaii to the UN are useless? As far s the Supreme court there are quite a few ways to find out what they are bound to review, and what they are barred from reviewing. As far as opinions, you are definitely out of your element lost in the sky.

Therefore you're once again returning to a conversation we can neither see nor hear. But so far aren't a part of.

As none of us have mentioned Alaska, Hawaii or the UN.

Do...do we even need to be here? As you appear to be taking on the duties of both sides of this conversation with yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Therefore is it your feeling that The floating around story about request of Alaska, and Hawaii to the UN are useless? As far s the Supreme court there are quite a few ways to find out what they are bound to review, and what they are barred from reviewing. As far as opinions, you are definitely out of your element lost in the sky.

Who are you?

Give us your premise in less than twenty words, please.

 

[12icer]

I asked you a question. You are so in love with your perceived visage as to be useless as a contributor to a resolution of a debate. You bring nothing but talking points the table. Sorry to upset your ego oh great one. But someone needs to view the requirements of a case to be reviewed by The Supreme Court. I asked for your opinion, and you had none I guess.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I asked you a question. You are so in love with your perceived visage as to be useless as a contributor to a resolution of a debate. You bring nothing but talking points the table. Sorry to upset your ego oh great one. But someone needs to view the requirements of a case to be reviewed by The Supreme Court. I asked for your opinion, and you had none I guess.

You have no idea what you are talking about, apparently, so let me help you.

The states can call for a convention, yes, but they cannot mandate that one be held.

States have no constitutional right to leave the union.

SCOTUS is the final court on what the constitution means.

 

[Skylar]

I asked you a question. You are so in love with your perceived visage as to be useless as a contributor to a resolution of a debate. You bring nothing but talking points the table. Sorry to upset your ego oh great one. But someone needs to view the requirements of a case to be reviewed by The Supreme Court. I asked for your opinion, and you had none I guess.

None of us have mentioned Alaska, Hawaii or the UN. So to answer your question, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm more than willing to discuss any position I've taken, anything I've posted. I'm unwilling to take whatever role you've made up for me in a script I've never read, involving a conversation I've never had.

Feel free to respond in a relevant fashion to any post in this thread. You'll note that your babble about 'Hawaii' and the "UN' isn't here.

Are you sure you have the right thread?

 

[12icer]

The story is that Alaska, and Hawaii are wanting to be released from the United States, The "premise" leaving as tried by the CSA Is the subject. IE STATES RIGHTS TO EXERCISE SOVERIGNTY Just don't answer, It's a waste of time to even ask a question.

 

[Skylar]

The story is that Alaska, and Hawaii are wanting to be released from the United States, The "premise" leaving as tried by the CSA Is the subject. IE STATES RIGHTS TO EXERCISE SOVERIGNTY Just don't answer, It's a waste of time to even ask a question.

When has Alaska or Hawaii said they want out of the US? Can you quote them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Alaskan citizns' petition to leave the Union fell far short of the required signatures, back in 2014. The state government had nothing to do with it.

 

[Skylar]

The Alaskan citizns' petition to leave the Union fell far short of the required signatures, back in 2014. The state government had nothing to do with it.

So when he said Alaska, he didn't mean Alaska.

Sigh. Apparently Icer and I have one thing in common; neither of us know what the fuck he's talking about.

 

[12icer]

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l Dead link it yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l Dead link it yourself.

Your link does not work. The fort-ross blog is a pro-Russian front. There is nothing about Alaska or Hawaii involved in secession movements.

 

[Skylar]

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l Dead link it yourself.

A website that has RT, Sputnik AND Pravda in its navigation bar?

You know those are all Russian government owned sources, right Comrade?

 

[JakeStarkey]

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l Dead link it yourself.

A website that has RT, Sputnik AND Pravda in its navigation bar?

You know those are all Russian government owned sources, right Comrade?

Yup, he is a Russian running dog.

 

[Skylar]

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l Dead link it yourself.

Your link does not work. The fort-ross blog is a pro-Russian front. There is nothing about Alaska or Hawaii involved in secession movements.

Nope. But true to a pro-Russian Website.......

“They’re taking our land and are mining mineral resources in huge quantities, causing damage to the environment. We believe that the Russians can help us. The year 2017 will mark 150 years since the sale of Alaska by Russia to the USA. If we could, working with the Russians, provide the truth about what really happened in history and to reject the distorted concepts about Alaska and our people, I think it would be a good way to rectify the situation,” – said the representative of Alaska in the working group “Alliance Alaska-Hawaii for self-determination” Ronald Barnes to the meeting in the Swiss press club in Geneva.

The article argues that Alaska be returned to Russia.

With the only reference to the 'Alliance Alaska-Hawaii for self-determination' on the entire internet....being that article. Here's the source Ft. Ross used: Аляска и Гавайи просят ООН признать США оккупантами | Блог Красная Шапочка | КОНТ

It appears to be a blog website.

When you translate it from Russian, the author of the article is Inna Vaseykina. A Moscow journalist writing for MKRU. A Russian daily newspaper.

That's as far back as I can take it.

 

[Skylar]

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/alaska-and-hawaii-ask-un-to-recognize.h**l Dead link it yourself.

A website that has RT, Sputnik AND Pravda in its navigation bar?

You know those are all Russian government owned sources, right Comrade?

Yup, he is a Russian running dog.

So another one of Lenin's 'useful idiots'? He seems surprisingly receptive to Russian Government propaganda.