Letter to Constitutional Lawyer: Asking to organize Constitutional conference on Political Beliefs

[Centinel]

Prior to entering into their compact each of the states was sovereign. They never gave up this sovereignty, and each of them agreed to the terms of the treaty they established between themselves. The federal government only has the powers that the states granted it. While they have delegated to it certain powers, it is merely acting as their agent.

They would have had to give up their individual sovereignty to become part of the republic. As they are no longer the Supreme Authority. The Several States are.

Lets use your pattern and see if it holds up. The State is the agent of the people. The people are the principals and the State is their agent. The people cannot embue the State with sovereignty if the People do not at some point have sovereignty themselves. Per your logic, that means that the State can *never* impose any rule on any citizen as the citizen is a principal. And thus retain their status as sovereigns.

That's not how our system of law works. Or has ever worked.

The individual is not a sovereign. They are subject to the will of the relevant majority as a member of the State. And the State most definitely *can* apply rules and regulations created by the authority of the relevant majority. And impose those rules regardless of the desires of the individual. Though with individuals there are rights which limit State action.

With Article V, there are no limits. An amendment can do....anything.

The States *were* sovereign. But transformed themselves into a republic by common compact. And as a republic they are beholden to the will of the relevant majority. They are not sovereigns anymore than an individual is sovereign over the State in which they are a citizen.

Your 'principal/agent' dichotomy doesn't preserve sovereignty over the individual state. As the principal isn't the individual State. The principal is the Several States.The Several States are sovereign. The individual States are not.

Just as the State is the servant of the People. Not an individual person. Its the People that are the sovereigns. Not any one person.

Your argument is that it is the individual that is the sovereign. That the individual gets to decide what the Constitution means, what the law mean, everything. And that's simply not the case in our system of law.

Nor has it *ever* been.

Likewise, Pennsylvania is not sovereign over New York, nor vice versa. Each is a sovereign and equal state. The fact that they and others have entered into a voluntary treaty does not diminish either of their sovereignty.

Of course it diminishes their sovereignty. They are no longer the Supreme authority in their own territory. But share it with the agent of the Several States to whom they are beholden. The Several States can strip an individual State of any power, any territory, and authority. They can disband the State if they wish. The Several States can do....anything. And the individual State cannot stop them.

Nor is there a square inch of territory that any State has exclusive jurisdiction over. They share all of their territory with the Agent of the Several States.

That's not sovereignty.

And if 3/4 of the states were to change the rules of the treaty in a way that was unacceptable to, say, Pennsylvania, then there is no prohibition in the treaty against it leaving the union.

Nope. As when the States entered the compact they became equally bound to the will of the Several States. They remain bound until it is agreed by the same common compact that they no longer are. James Madison makes it very clear unilateral secession is no part of the Constitution. Nor ever was. Both during the ratification of the Constitution and after.

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

This is the fundamental fallacy of your argument. You confound a single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

They are not the same thing. An individual state is not the same thing as the Several States. Nor do they wield the same power. As the Father of the Constitution himself makes ludicrously clear. Madison takes it farther still in a letter to Daniel Webster on the same topic:

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The sovereignty is imbued in the people of the several states. The people of an individual state are not the People of the Sovereign States. The People mentioned in the constitution are the People of the Several States.

"The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism."

James Madison

The constitution must be exited by the same community it was entered into: the Several States. It cannot be exited unilaterally by a separate community anymore than you can unilaterally declare that your house is its own country.

You lack the authority to make that decision for the people of the State and Country you live in. Just as an individual State lacks the authority to declare its the territory it shares jurisdiction over with the Agent of the Several States is now the individual State's alone.

The Several States get a say. And given that the Constitution subordinates the will of an individual State to the will of the Several States, the Several States get THE say. And excercise that authority through their agent:

The Federal Government.

When a state enters into a treaty with other states, it does not relinquish its sovereignty. It simply agrees to be bound by certain rules as condition of remaining in the treaty.

The constitution isn't a 'treaty'. Its a solemn compact that transformed the States from individual sovereigns into a republic. Not an agreement on the width of wagon axles across State lines.

Your 'principal-agent' assumptions simply don't work. As the People are the principals in the creation of a State in the exact manner that the Several States are principals in the creation of the United States. If your assumption that any individual State can unilaterally separate their territory from the United States, unilaterally interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and unilaterally ignore any amendment or statute that they don't like...

....then an individual citizen of a State would have the same authority to ignore any of the same created by the State of which they are a citizen. And could unilaterally declare any property they own to be their own country.

But this has never been the way our laws works. You are in error on who the principals are, and who they are agents for. The principal is not an individual State. Its the Several States. And the United States Federal government isn't the agent of any individual State. But of the Several States.

Just as the Principal in the creation of a State is not any individual person. But The People of that State, as expressed in a relevant majority. With the State judiciary, executive and legislatures being agents of The People. Not any individual person. And if an individual person violates the laws established through the will of The People, they are subject to enforcement, adjudication and punishment. The individuals are not sovereigns. The People are the sovereign. With individual citizens being subject to the will of the People. Though as mentioned before, the actions of the State are limited by rights. There are no such restrictions in the relationship of the Several States to the individual States

When your pattern and assumptions is applied in an explicitly analogous arrangement, it breaks. And it breaks because you're engaged in the very fallacy that the Oregon Militia engaged in, that the Sovereign Citizen movement is engaged in, that Madison himself warned and argued against:


The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. - James Madison


This is your fallacy. Your entire argument is predicated on the single party having the exact authority as the Parties to the Compact. And that's simply not the case. As Article V and the Supremacy Clause makes ludicrously clear. As an even passing appraisal of individual citizens as their relationship with the agent of the People, their State makes clear. And you've resolved none of these huge, theory killing holes in your argument. You've simply refrained from addressing them.

They yet remain.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?

The Preamble alone breaks your argument. As it defines the Principal engaged in the compact of the Constitution: we the People of the United States. The people of an individual State alone are not the 'People of the United States' anymore than the folks in your livingroom are the 'People' in your State in any legal sense.

Any changes to be made to this compact must be done by its Principal. And with the same threshold of the exercise of authority as created the compact. As Madison makes ridiculously clear. There's a reason you refuse to address Madison's argument on this topic. As he obliterates yours.

Your analogy doesn't hold because I am not a sovereign state whereas each of the member states of the union is a sovereign state.

My analogy is perfect as your entire argument is based on your conception of principal and agent. The *exact* relationship between the People and the State. Yet when we apply your assumptions of the Principal/Agent relationship to the People and the State......your conceptions break. If they were valid, they would work in either instance.

You're cherry picking your conception of the the Principal Agent relationship, applying it when convenient to your argument and ignoring it when it isn't. Just as you ignore James Madison who explicitly and repeatedly contradicts you. Whereas my conception of the Principal Agent relationship 1) Works in both instances perfectly 2) Matches the description of the relationship by the Founders, including James Madison. 3) Matches history.

Your argument breaks on James Madison. So you ignore him. It breaks on the People of the United States. So you ignore any mention of them. It breaks on the rulings of the Supreme Court. It breaks on history.

These are not minor failings.

And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.

Of course I have: the Preamble. It defines the Principal: the People of the United States. Which an individual state isn't.

You can't base your entire argument on the Principal/Agent relationship and then ignore the very conception of a Principal/Agent relationship. Your version of the Principal/Agent relationship is nonsense. It doesn't exist in our system of law. Its contradicted by application, consistent logic, and the Founders themselves. With James Madison not only destroying your argument, but doing so repeatedly, even citing the very fallacy you've fallen into:

Confounding a single party with the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

That's your fallacy. And the Father of the Constitution destroyed the entire argument generations ago.

The preamble? Can you point out the specific language in the preamble that prohibits any of the member states from exiting the compact to which it voluntarily agreed?

 

[Skylar]

They would have had to give up their individual sovereignty to become part of the republic. As they are no longer the Supreme Authority. The Several States are.

Lets use your pattern and see if it holds up. The State is the agent of the people. The people are the principals and the State is their agent. The people cannot embue the State with sovereignty if the People do not at some point have sovereignty themselves. Per your logic, that means that the State can *never* impose any rule on any citizen as the citizen is a principal. And thus retain their status as sovereigns.

That's not how our system of law works. Or has ever worked.

The individual is not a sovereign. They are subject to the will of the relevant majority as a member of the State. And the State most definitely *can* apply rules and regulations created by the authority of the relevant majority. And impose those rules regardless of the desires of the individual. Though with individuals there are rights which limit State action.

With Article V, there are no limits. An amendment can do....anything.

The States *were* sovereign. But transformed themselves into a republic by common compact. And as a republic they are beholden to the will of the relevant majority. They are not sovereigns anymore than an individual is sovereign over the State in which they are a citizen.

Your 'principal/agent' dichotomy doesn't preserve sovereignty over the individual state. As the principal isn't the individual State. The principal is the Several States.The Several States are sovereign. The individual States are not.

Just as the State is the servant of the People. Not an individual person. Its the People that are the sovereigns. Not any one person.

Your argument is that it is the individual that is the sovereign. That the individual gets to decide what the Constitution means, what the law mean, everything. And that's simply not the case in our system of law.

Nor has it *ever* been.

Of course it diminishes their sovereignty. They are no longer the Supreme authority in their own territory. But share it with the agent of the Several States to whom they are beholden. The Several States can strip an individual State of any power, any territory, and authority. They can disband the State if they wish. The Several States can do....anything. And the individual State cannot stop them.

Nor is there a square inch of territory that any State has exclusive jurisdiction over. They share all of their territory with the Agent of the Several States.

That's not sovereignty.

Nope. As when the States entered the compact they became equally bound to the will of the Several States. They remain bound until it is agreed by the same common compact that they no longer are. James Madison makes it very clear unilateral secession is no part of the Constitution. Nor ever was. Both during the ratification of the Constitution and after.

This is the fundamental fallacy of your argument. You confound a single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

They are not the same thing. An individual state is not the same thing as the Several States. Nor do they wield the same power. As the Father of the Constitution himself makes ludicrously clear. Madison takes it farther still in a letter to Daniel Webster on the same topic:

The sovereignty is imbued in the people of the several states. The people of an individual state are not the People of the Sovereign States. The People mentioned in the constitution are the People of the Several States.

The constitution must be exited by the same community it was entered into: the Several States. It cannot be exited unilaterally by a separate community anymore than you can unilaterally declare that your house is its own country.

You lack the authority to make that decision for the people of the State and Country you live in. Just as an individual State lacks the authority to declare its the territory it shares jurisdiction over with the Agent of the Several States is now the individual State's alone.

The Several States get a say. And given that the Constitution subordinates the will of an individual State to the will of the Several States, the Several States get THE say. And excercise that authority through their agent:

The Federal Government.

When a state enters into a treaty with other states, it does not relinquish its sovereignty. It simply agrees to be bound by certain rules as condition of remaining in the treaty.

The constitution isn't a 'treaty'. Its a solemn compact that transformed the States from individual sovereigns into a republic. Not an agreement on the width of wagon axles across State lines.

Your 'principal-agent' assumptions simply don't work. As the People are the principals in the creation of a State in the exact manner that the Several States are principals in the creation of the United States. If your assumption that any individual State can unilaterally separate their territory from the United States, unilaterally interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and unilaterally ignore any amendment or statute that they don't like...

....then an individual citizen of a State would have the same authority to ignore any of the same created by the State of which they are a citizen. And could unilaterally declare any property they own to be their own country.

But this has never been the way our laws works. You are in error on who the principals are, and who they are agents for. The principal is not an individual State. Its the Several States. And the United States Federal government isn't the agent of any individual State. But of the Several States.

Just as the Principal in the creation of a State is not any individual person. But The People of that State, as expressed in a relevant majority. With the State judiciary, executive and legislatures being agents of The People. Not any individual person. And if an individual person violates the laws established through the will of The People, they are subject to enforcement, adjudication and punishment. The individuals are not sovereigns. The People are the sovereign. With individual citizens being subject to the will of the People. Though as mentioned before, the actions of the State are limited by rights. There are no such restrictions in the relationship of the Several States to the individual States

When your pattern and assumptions is applied in an explicitly analogous arrangement, it breaks. And it breaks because you're engaged in the very fallacy that the Oregon Militia engaged in, that the Sovereign Citizen movement is engaged in, that Madison himself warned and argued against:


The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. - James Madison


This is your fallacy. Your entire argument is predicated on the single party having the exact authority as the Parties to the Compact. And that's simply not the case. As Article V and the Supremacy Clause makes ludicrously clear. As an even passing appraisal of individual citizens as their relationship with the agent of the People, their State makes clear. And you've resolved none of these huge, theory killing holes in your argument. You've simply refrained from addressing them.

They yet remain.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?

The Preamble alone breaks your argument. As it defines the Principal engaged in the compact of the Constitution: we the People of the United States. The people of an individual State alone are not the 'People of the United States' anymore than the folks in your livingroom are the 'People' in your State in any legal sense.

Any changes to be made to this compact must be done by its Principal. And with the same threshold of the exercise of authority as created the compact. As Madison makes ridiculously clear. There's a reason you refuse to address Madison's argument on this topic. As he obliterates yours.

Your analogy doesn't hold because I am not a sovereign state whereas each of the member states of the union is a sovereign state.

My analogy is perfect as your entire argument is based on your conception of principal and agent. The *exact* relationship between the People and the State. Yet when we apply your assumptions of the Principal/Agent relationship to the People and the State......your conceptions break. If they were valid, they would work in either instance.

You're cherry picking your conception of the the Principal Agent relationship, applying it when convenient to your argument and ignoring it when it isn't. Just as you ignore James Madison who explicitly and repeatedly contradicts you. Whereas my conception of the Principal Agent relationship 1) Works in both instances perfectly 2) Matches the description of the relationship by the Founders, including James Madison. 3) Matches history.

Your argument breaks on James Madison. So you ignore him. It breaks on the People of the United States. So you ignore any mention of them. It breaks on the rulings of the Supreme Court. It breaks on history.

These are not minor failings.

And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.

Of course I have: the Preamble. It defines the Principal: the People of the United States. Which an individual state isn't.

You can't base your entire argument on the Principal/Agent relationship and then ignore the very conception of a Principal/Agent relationship. Your version of the Principal/Agent relationship is nonsense. It doesn't exist in our system of law. Its contradicted by application, consistent logic, and the Founders themselves. With James Madison not only destroying your argument, but doing so repeatedly, even citing the very fallacy you've fallen into:

Confounding a single party with the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

That's your fallacy. And the Father of the Constitution destroyed the entire argument generations ago.

The preamble? Can you point out the specific language in the preamble that prohibits any of the member states from exiting the compact to which it voluntarily agreed?

For the third time, 'We the People of the United States".

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

As the 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison makes ridiculously clear when refuting your exact argument. About 180 years ago.

 

[Centinel]

When a state enters into a treaty with other states, it does not relinquish its sovereignty. It simply agrees to be bound by certain rules as condition of remaining in the treaty.

The constitution isn't a 'treaty'. Its a solemn compact that transformed the States from individual sovereigns into a republic. Not an agreement on the width of wagon axles across State lines.

Your 'principal-agent' assumptions simply don't work. As the People are the principals in the creation of a State in the exact manner that the Several States are principals in the creation of the United States. If your assumption that any individual State can unilaterally separate their territory from the United States, unilaterally interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and unilaterally ignore any amendment or statute that they don't like...

....then an individual citizen of a State would have the same authority to ignore any of the same created by the State of which they are a citizen. And could unilaterally declare any property they own to be their own country.

But this has never been the way our laws works. You are in error on who the principals are, and who they are agents for. The principal is not an individual State. Its the Several States. And the United States Federal government isn't the agent of any individual State. But of the Several States.

Just as the Principal in the creation of a State is not any individual person. But The People of that State, as expressed in a relevant majority. With the State judiciary, executive and legislatures being agents of The People. Not any individual person. And if an individual person violates the laws established through the will of The People, they are subject to enforcement, adjudication and punishment. The individuals are not sovereigns. The People are the sovereign. With individual citizens being subject to the will of the People. Though as mentioned before, the actions of the State are limited by rights. There are no such restrictions in the relationship of the Several States to the individual States

When your pattern and assumptions is applied in an explicitly analogous arrangement, it breaks. And it breaks because you're engaged in the very fallacy that the Oregon Militia engaged in, that the Sovereign Citizen movement is engaged in, that Madison himself warned and argued against:


The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. - James Madison


This is your fallacy. Your entire argument is predicated on the single party having the exact authority as the Parties to the Compact. And that's simply not the case. As Article V and the Supremacy Clause makes ludicrously clear. As an even passing appraisal of individual citizens as their relationship with the agent of the People, their State makes clear. And you've resolved none of these huge, theory killing holes in your argument. You've simply refrained from addressing them.

They yet remain.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?

The Preamble alone breaks your argument. As it defines the Principal engaged in the compact of the Constitution: we the People of the United States. The people of an individual State alone are not the 'People of the United States' anymore than the folks in your livingroom are the 'People' in your State in any legal sense.

Any changes to be made to this compact must be done by its Principal. And with the same threshold of the exercise of authority as created the compact. As Madison makes ridiculously clear. There's a reason you refuse to address Madison's argument on this topic. As he obliterates yours.

Your analogy doesn't hold because I am not a sovereign state whereas each of the member states of the union is a sovereign state.

My analogy is perfect as your entire argument is based on your conception of principal and agent. The *exact* relationship between the People and the State. Yet when we apply your assumptions of the Principal/Agent relationship to the People and the State......your conceptions break. If they were valid, they would work in either instance.

You're cherry picking your conception of the the Principal Agent relationship, applying it when convenient to your argument and ignoring it when it isn't. Just as you ignore James Madison who explicitly and repeatedly contradicts you. Whereas my conception of the Principal Agent relationship 1) Works in both instances perfectly 2) Matches the description of the relationship by the Founders, including James Madison. 3) Matches history.

Your argument breaks on James Madison. So you ignore him. It breaks on the People of the United States. So you ignore any mention of them. It breaks on the rulings of the Supreme Court. It breaks on history.

These are not minor failings.

And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.

Of course I have: the Preamble. It defines the Principal: the People of the United States. Which an individual state isn't.

You can't base your entire argument on the Principal/Agent relationship and then ignore the very conception of a Principal/Agent relationship. Your version of the Principal/Agent relationship is nonsense. It doesn't exist in our system of law. Its contradicted by application, consistent logic, and the Founders themselves. With James Madison not only destroying your argument, but doing so repeatedly, even citing the very fallacy you've fallen into:

Confounding a single party with the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

That's your fallacy. And the Father of the Constitution destroyed the entire argument generations ago.

The preamble? Can you point out the specific language in the preamble that prohibits any of the member states from exiting the compact to which it voluntarily agreed?

For the third time, 'We the People of the United States".

How is "We the People of the United States" in any way a prohibition on any of the sovereign states from leaving the union they voluntarily entered?

The constitution was established between the sovereign states. It contains the rules of their compact. You cannot cite any rule prohibiting any state from choosing to exit the union.

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. Can you point to any prohibition on a state exiting? If not, then based upon the 10th amendment, the power to withdraw was retained by the states.

 

[12icer]

As in the previous post I POSTED It did not have an text inferring that you posted any of those things. Is simply an exercise in inference of a totalitarian central government with absolute control and no method of redress by less than a 2/3 coalition of states.

 

[Skylar]

How is "We the People of the United States" in any way a prohibition on any of the sovereign states from leaving the union they voluntarily entered?

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

As the 'Father of the Constitution' James Madison makes ridiculously clear when refuting your exact argument. About 180 years ago.

You literally omitted the very answer you asked for from the post you are replying to. You're just stalling now. You're stuck, your argument doesn't work, and you know it doesn't work.

The constitution was established between the sovereign states. It contains the rules of their compact. You cannot cite any rule prohibiting any state from choosing to exit the union.

And an individual state isn't the 'Several States'. Just as you are not 'The People' in the People's compact with the State. You know this too. You're just stalling.

Again, you're ignoring your entire basis of your own argument: the Principle/Agent relationship. And you've already admitted the the Principle to the Constitution isn't an individual State. But the Several States. Only the Principal of the Compact can alter it. And an individual state isn't the principal.

You've ignored Madison, insisting you know better. You don't. You've ignored your own basis of argument, arbitrarily ignoring the Principal/Agent relationship whenever its inconvenient. You've ignored logic, abandoning your own standards of how the Principal Agent relationship works when we apply it to an explicitly analogous arrangement between the individual and the State. You've ignored history, where your assumptions have *never* been how our basis of law works.

Ever.

My standards are consistent, working between the Several States, the Federal Government and an individual State as well as it does between the People, the State government and the individual citizen. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explicitly backs my argument and refutes yours. My argument is explicitly in line logic, as it works consistently between Principal-Agent relationships. And my standards are *exactly* how our system of law has worked for centuries.

And you ignore it all. Are you starting to see why your perspective has nothing to do with the Constitution and our system of law.....nor ever has? You can choose to ignore the wild inconsistencies in your argument. But you can't make us ignore them.

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states. Can you point to any prohibition on a state exiting? If not, then based upon the 10th amendment, the power to withdraw was retained by the states.

Violating the compact isn't a power anyone possesses under the compact. As both the Preamble, Article V and James Madison make ludicriously clear, the Principal is the Several States. And an individual State cannot alter the compact anymore than an individual citizen can unilaterally change the law of their State. The individual state is subject to the will of the Several States.

If they want to leave, they're subject to the same standards as when they entered.

You're arguing that the compact of the constitution that binds all States equally....doesn't actually bind any State at all. As they can ignore any part of the Compact, even leave it at their will.

Nope. That's not our system of law either. Nor ever has been. You're ignoring the very concept of a Compact as well as the people that wrote the compact and entered into it. And imagining that you know better than all of them. You don't. There's a reason why your self contradicting assumptions have never been reflected in our law: they have nothing to do with it.

 

[Skylar]

As in the previous post I POSTED It did not have an text inferring that you posted any of those things. Is simply an exercise in inference of a totalitarian central government with absolute control and no method of redress by less than a 2/3 coalition of states.

Then why are you attributing to me positions I've never even mentioned, let alone taken. Again, you claimed to post MY admissions. Let me demonstrate with an excerpt from your post:

SO for your purpose you admit that the United States violated the Constitution, and committed an offense that was sufficient for redress by levying tariffs on the southern states and they were only wrong in their method of withdrawing from the Union before the Civil War.

I 'admit', huh? I believe the words you were looking for were 'never even mentioned'. As demonstrated by this little confession: ''it did not have an [sic] text inferring that you posted any of those things."

Insisting I admitted something absolutely infers I've posted something on that topic. Which we all agree, I still haven't. I've made no claims regarding 'tariff' or even mentioned the Civil War. That was all you citing yourself, apparently chewing your own rhetorical cud.

So, I ask again....are you sure you're posting in the right thread? As your post reads like part of another conversation that just isn't happening here.

 

[emilynghiem]

They would have had to give up their individual sovereignty to become part of the republic. As they are no longer the Supreme Authority. The Several States are.

Lets use your pattern and see if it holds up. The State is the agent of the people. The people are the principals and the State is their agent. The people cannot embue the State with sovereignty if the People do not at some point have sovereignty themselves. Per your logic, that means that the State can *never* impose any rule on any citizen as the citizen is a principal. And thus retain their status as sovereigns.

That's not how our system of law works. Or has ever worked.

The individual is not a sovereign. They are subject to the will of the relevant majority as a member of the State. And the State most definitely *can* apply rules and regulations created by the authority of the relevant majority. And impose those rules regardless of the desires of the individual. Though with individuals there are rights which limit State action.

With Article V, there are no limits. An amendment can do....anything.

The States *were* sovereign. But transformed themselves into a republic by common compact. And as a republic they are beholden to the will of the relevant majority. They are not sovereigns anymore than an individual is sovereign over the State in which they are a citizen.

Your 'principal/agent' dichotomy doesn't preserve sovereignty over the individual state. As the principal isn't the individual State. The principal is the Several States.The Several States are sovereign. The individual States are not.

Just as the State is the servant of the People. Not an individual person. Its the People that are the sovereigns. Not any one person.

Your argument is that it is the individual that is the sovereign. That the individual gets to decide what the Constitution means, what the law mean, everything. And that's simply not the case in our system of law.

Nor has it *ever* been.

Of course it diminishes their sovereignty. They are no longer the Supreme authority in their own territory. But share it with the agent of the Several States to whom they are beholden. The Several States can strip an individual State of any power, any territory, and authority. They can disband the State if they wish. The Several States can do....anything. And the individual State cannot stop them.

Nor is there a square inch of territory that any State has exclusive jurisdiction over. They share all of their territory with the Agent of the Several States.

That's not sovereignty.

Nope. As when the States entered the compact they became equally bound to the will of the Several States. They remain bound until it is agreed by the same common compact that they no longer are. James Madison makes it very clear unilateral secession is no part of the Constitution. Nor ever was. Both during the ratification of the Constitution and after.

This is the fundamental fallacy of your argument. You confound a single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

They are not the same thing. An individual state is not the same thing as the Several States. Nor do they wield the same power. As the Father of the Constitution himself makes ludicrously clear. Madison takes it farther still in a letter to Daniel Webster on the same topic:

The sovereignty is imbued in the people of the several states. The people of an individual state are not the People of the Sovereign States. The People mentioned in the constitution are the People of the Several States.

The constitution must be exited by the same community it was entered into: the Several States. It cannot be exited unilaterally by a separate community anymore than you can unilaterally declare that your house is its own country.

You lack the authority to make that decision for the people of the State and Country you live in. Just as an individual State lacks the authority to declare its the territory it shares jurisdiction over with the Agent of the Several States is now the individual State's alone.

The Several States get a say. And given that the Constitution subordinates the will of an individual State to the will of the Several States, the Several States get THE say. And excercise that authority through their agent:

The Federal Government.

When a state enters into a treaty with other states, it does not relinquish its sovereignty. It simply agrees to be bound by certain rules as condition of remaining in the treaty.

The constitution isn't a 'treaty'. Its a solemn compact that transformed the States from individual sovereigns into a republic. Not an agreement on the width of wagon axles across State lines.

Your 'principal-agent' assumptions simply don't work. As the People are the principals in the creation of a State in the exact manner that the Several States are principals in the creation of the United States. If your assumption that any individual State can unilaterally separate their territory from the United States, unilaterally interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and unilaterally ignore any amendment or statute that they don't like...

....then an individual citizen of a State would have the same authority to ignore any of the same created by the State of which they are a citizen. And could unilaterally declare any property they own to be their own country.

But this has never been the way our laws works. You are in error on who the principals are, and who they are agents for. The principal is not an individual State. Its the Several States. And the United States Federal government isn't the agent of any individual State. But of the Several States.

Just as the Principal in the creation of a State is not any individual person. But The People of that State, as expressed in a relevant majority. With the State judiciary, executive and legislatures being agents of The People. Not any individual person. And if an individual person violates the laws established through the will of The People, they are subject to enforcement, adjudication and punishment. The individuals are not sovereigns. The People are the sovereign. With individual citizens being subject to the will of the People. Though as mentioned before, the actions of the State are limited by rights. There are no such restrictions in the relationship of the Several States to the individual States

When your pattern and assumptions is applied in an explicitly analogous arrangement, it breaks. And it breaks because you're engaged in the very fallacy that the Oregon Militia engaged in, that the Sovereign Citizen movement is engaged in, that Madison himself warned and argued against:


The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. - James Madison


This is your fallacy. Your entire argument is predicated on the single party having the exact authority as the Parties to the Compact. And that's simply not the case. As Article V and the Supremacy Clause makes ludicrously clear. As an even passing appraisal of individual citizens as their relationship with the agent of the People, their State makes clear. And you've resolved none of these huge, theory killing holes in your argument. You've simply refrained from addressing them.

They yet remain.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?

The Preamble alone breaks your argument. As it defines the Principal engaged in the compact of the Constitution: we the People of the United States. The people of an individual State alone are not the 'People of the United States' anymore than the folks in your livingroom are the 'People' in your State in any legal sense.

Any changes to be made to this compact must be done by its Principal. And with the same threshold of the exercise of authority as created the compact. As Madison makes ridiculously clear. There's a reason you refuse to address Madison's argument on this topic. As he obliterates yours.

Your analogy doesn't hold because I am not a sovereign state whereas each of the member states of the union is a sovereign state.

My analogy is perfect as your entire argument is based on your conception of principal and agent. The *exact* relationship between the People and the State. Yet when we apply your assumptions of the Principal/Agent relationship to the People and the State......your conceptions break. If they were valid, they would work in either instance.

You're cherry picking your conception of the the Principal Agent relationship, applying it when convenient to your argument and ignoring it when it isn't. Just as you ignore James Madison who explicitly and repeatedly contradicts you. Whereas my conception of the Principal Agent relationship 1) Works in both instances perfectly 2) Matches the description of the relationship by the Founders, including James Madison. 3) Matches history.

Your argument breaks on James Madison. So you ignore him. It breaks on the People of the United States. So you ignore any mention of them. It breaks on the rulings of the Supreme Court. It breaks on history.

These are not minor failings.

And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.

Of course I have: the Preamble. It defines the Principal: the People of the United States. Which an individual state isn't.

You can't base your entire argument on the Principal/Agent relationship and then ignore the very conception of a Principal/Agent relationship. Your version of the Principal/Agent relationship is nonsense. It doesn't exist in our system of law. Its contradicted by application, consistent logic, and the Founders themselves. With James Madison not only destroying your argument, but doing so repeatedly, even citing the very fallacy you've fallen into:

Confounding a single party with the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

That's your fallacy. And the Father of the Constitution destroyed the entire argument generations ago.

The preamble? Can you point out the specific language in the preamble that prohibits any of the member states from exiting the compact to which it voluntarily agreed?

Hi Centinel
This is like having the right to divorce, the choice to leave, so you never have to.
Because nobody wants to have to carry out that choice, then any issues that would cause a divorce
HAVE to be resolved so it doesn't force a divorce.

I would say this is part of the First Amendment about the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and to petition the Govt for a redress of grievances. If that is followed, and all grievances are redressed,
there is no reason to leave the union.

When you understand that you don't want a divorce, that means the grievances HAVE to be resolved.
I interpret this as part of the right to petition for a redress of grievances.
So no grievances can be left unredressed by this interpretation.

It is hypothetically a choice to break up, but within the commitment, there is an understanding
that's not a viable option so all states have to resolve the issues to keep the union together.

Also note that if Hawaii were to secede, for example, that would endanger security.
So it becomes an issue of state and national security if states break off from the United States.
That not only affects that state, but others as well.
So I would say it's part of security and equal protection of the laws.

That's a very loose interpretation and obviously not literal.

Even so, I still believe that all people and states reserve the right to leave;
you have to have that choice in order to have free choice and true liberty.

It may be hypothetical and not practical, but it should still be respected
as a choice, similar to never taking a spouse for granted just because
you assume you are married for life. If both partners recognize they
could choose to leave and marry someone else, then the commitment
to mutual agreed terms of the relationship is never taken for granted.
Those conditions must be met on a daily basis for the relationship
to work. If people didn't have a choice to leave, then this too easily gets abusive.

Thank you,
Emily

 

[Skylar]

When a state enters into a treaty with other states, it does not relinquish its sovereignty. It simply agrees to be bound by certain rules as condition of remaining in the treaty.

The constitution isn't a 'treaty'. Its a solemn compact that transformed the States from individual sovereigns into a republic. Not an agreement on the width of wagon axles across State lines.

Your 'principal-agent' assumptions simply don't work. As the People are the principals in the creation of a State in the exact manner that the Several States are principals in the creation of the United States. If your assumption that any individual State can unilaterally separate their territory from the United States, unilaterally interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and unilaterally ignore any amendment or statute that they don't like...

....then an individual citizen of a State would have the same authority to ignore any of the same created by the State of which they are a citizen. And could unilaterally declare any property they own to be their own country.

But this has never been the way our laws works. You are in error on who the principals are, and who they are agents for. The principal is not an individual State. Its the Several States. And the United States Federal government isn't the agent of any individual State. But of the Several States.

Just as the Principal in the creation of a State is not any individual person. But The People of that State, as expressed in a relevant majority. With the State judiciary, executive and legislatures being agents of The People. Not any individual person. And if an individual person violates the laws established through the will of The People, they are subject to enforcement, adjudication and punishment. The individuals are not sovereigns. The People are the sovereign. With individual citizens being subject to the will of the People. Though as mentioned before, the actions of the State are limited by rights. There are no such restrictions in the relationship of the Several States to the individual States

When your pattern and assumptions is applied in an explicitly analogous arrangement, it breaks. And it breaks because you're engaged in the very fallacy that the Oregon Militia engaged in, that the Sovereign Citizen movement is engaged in, that Madison himself warned and argued against:


The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. - James Madison


This is your fallacy. Your entire argument is predicated on the single party having the exact authority as the Parties to the Compact. And that's simply not the case. As Article V and the Supremacy Clause makes ludicrously clear. As an even passing appraisal of individual citizens as their relationship with the agent of the People, their State makes clear. And you've resolved none of these huge, theory killing holes in your argument. You've simply refrained from addressing them.

They yet remain.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids any state from leaving?

The Preamble alone breaks your argument. As it defines the Principal engaged in the compact of the Constitution: we the People of the United States. The people of an individual State alone are not the 'People of the United States' anymore than the folks in your livingroom are the 'People' in your State in any legal sense.

Any changes to be made to this compact must be done by its Principal. And with the same threshold of the exercise of authority as created the compact. As Madison makes ridiculously clear. There's a reason you refuse to address Madison's argument on this topic. As he obliterates yours.

Your analogy doesn't hold because I am not a sovereign state whereas each of the member states of the union is a sovereign state.

My analogy is perfect as your entire argument is based on your conception of principal and agent. The *exact* relationship between the People and the State. Yet when we apply your assumptions of the Principal/Agent relationship to the People and the State......your conceptions break. If they were valid, they would work in either instance.

You're cherry picking your conception of the the Principal Agent relationship, applying it when convenient to your argument and ignoring it when it isn't. Just as you ignore James Madison who explicitly and repeatedly contradicts you. Whereas my conception of the Principal Agent relationship 1) Works in both instances perfectly 2) Matches the description of the relationship by the Founders, including James Madison. 3) Matches history.

Your argument breaks on James Madison. So you ignore him. It breaks on the People of the United States. So you ignore any mention of them. It breaks on the rulings of the Supreme Court. It breaks on history.

These are not minor failings.

And you still haven't cited the language in the constitution that prohibits any of the states from unilaterally choosing to exit the unioni.

Of course I have: the Preamble. It defines the Principal: the People of the United States. Which an individual state isn't.

You can't base your entire argument on the Principal/Agent relationship and then ignore the very conception of a Principal/Agent relationship. Your version of the Principal/Agent relationship is nonsense. It doesn't exist in our system of law. Its contradicted by application, consistent logic, and the Founders themselves. With James Madison not only destroying your argument, but doing so repeatedly, even citing the very fallacy you've fallen into:

Confounding a single party with the Constitutional Compact of the United States.

That's your fallacy. And the Father of the Constitution destroyed the entire argument generations ago.

The preamble? Can you point out the specific language in the preamble that prohibits any of the member states from exiting the compact to which it voluntarily agreed?

Hi Centinel
This is like having the right to divorce, the choice to leave, so you never have to.
Because nobody wants to have to carry out that choice, then any issues that would cause a divorce
HAVE to be resolved so it doesn't force a divorce.

I would say this is part of the First Amendment about the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and to petition the Govt for a redress of grievances. If that is followed, and all grievances are redressed,
there is no reason to leave the union.

When you understand that you don't want a divorce, that means the grievances HAVE to be resolved.
I interpret this as part of the right to petition for a redress of grievances.
So no grievances can be left unredressed by this interpretation.

It is hypothetically a choice to break up, but within the commitment, there is an understanding
that's not a viable option so all states have to resolve the issues to keep the union together.

Also note that if Hawaii were to secede, for example, that would endanger security.
So it becomes an issue of state and national security if states break off from the United States.
That not only affects that state, but others as well.
So I would say it's part of security and equal protection of the laws.

That's a very loose interpretation and obviously not literal.

Even so, I still believe that all people and states reserve the right to leave;
you have to have that choice in order to have free choice and true liberty.

It may be hypothetical and not practical, but it should still be respected
as a choice, similar to never taking a spouse for granted just because
you assume you are married for life. If both partners recognize they
could choose to leave and marry someone else, then the commitment
to mutual agreed terms of the relationship is never taken for granted.
Those conditions must be met on a daily basis for the relationship
to work. If people didn't have a choice to leave, then this too easily gets abusive.

Thank you,
Emily

The constitution as marriage analogy doesn't work for several reasons. First in a marriage, there's an overarching leviathan setting the rules. If you and your husband disagree on something when getting divorced, there's divorce court. Community Property laws, a judge, perhaps even a jury if it gets really ugly, can decide conflicts. In this arrangement, there would be none in Cent's estimation. Also in a marriage there are only two partners. So there would be an even 50-50 split on power. In the actual arrangement there are dozens of participants Third, there's no 'Principal-Agent' relationship in a marriage.

Lets compare it a more much analogous real world Principal-Agent relationship: the People creating a State. People start as individuals. They decide what they are going to do. And because of mutual advantage of working together in a society, they decide to make a State. This state would exercise their authority together. But since people disagree, how would they decide how the authority was to be weilded?

A relevant majority. When a sufficient majority agrees (could be 50% plus 1, could be a super majority of 2/3rds, could be 3/4s...whatever we agree), then this relevant majority has the authority to enact policy. Set speeding laws. Outlaw rape and murder. Collect taxes, etc. Once we've arranged ourselves into a State, then the Will of the Relevant Majority would be imposed on the individual. Lets say you like driving down the road at 100 mph, but the relevant majority outlaws it. They can enforce their laws within a State, enforce those laws with police, fine or arrest you for violating those laws, try you and punish you.

You as an individual can no longer do whatever you want. You're subject to the laws of the State, which is created by the WIll of the Relevant majority. Before there was a state, you could do what you want and there was no one to tell you otherwise. After there is a State, you can't. You are equally bound like all other citizens to the Will of the Relevant Majority. The State government, its police, its laws, its courts, would all be Agents of the Will of the Relevant Majority. And the Relevant Majority can tell its agent what to do.....by voting.

You, as an individual, couldn't unilaterally declare that say, the laws of the State don't apply to you. Or that your house is now its own country called 'Emilystan' and withdraw from the State. You, as an individual, lack that authority. The state doesn't belong to you personally. It belongs to the People. All of them. And the threshold of exercising power is the Relevant Majority. You don't get to decide what the laws are alone. An elected legislature does, voted in by the majority of the people.

This arrangement isn't a 'marriage'. You can't unilaterally decide that the laws don't apply to you anymore and 'unenroll' from State authority. You can't seize State territory and declare it your own State. As the State wasn't created by you alone. It was created by The People. And you'd need a relevant majority of them to change the laws, change territory, etc.

These aren't decisions you can make alone.

 

[Centinel]

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

The several states established the constitution between themselves. Their constitution describes the powers of the federal government and also describes the powers forbidden to any individual state (Art I, section 8 and Art I, section 10).

So, does article I, section 8 delegate to congress any power to prevent any single state from leaving the union? I don't see any.

Does article I, section 10 prohibit any state from leaving the union? I don't see any.

If you think that the states wrote any language into their compact that prohibits states from exiting the union, please point out the language that containts that prohibition. (I'm looking words like "shall not" or "may not").

 

[Centinel]

Violating the compact isn't a power anyone possesses under the compact.

A state leaving the union wouldn't be a violation of the compact. The compact contains no rule forbidding it, therefore it can't be a violation.

 

[Skylar]

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

If your conception of the Principal/Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? Remember, the States are nothing more than vehicles for the authority of their people. If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances beautifully. Yours falls to pieces.. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

 

[Centinel]

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

If your conception of the Principal=Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances. Yours doesn't. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

 

[Skylar]

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

If your conception of the Principal=Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances. Yours doesn't. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering an individual state as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

 

[Centinel]

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

If your conception of the Principal=Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances. Yours doesn't. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering them as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

 

[Skylar]

For the fourth time, pulled directly from the post you're replying to:

The Preamble defines who the Principal is. Anyone who isn't the Principal can't modify the "Principal/Agent" relationship. An individual State isn't 'the People of the United States".

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

If your conception of the Principal=Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances. Yours doesn't. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering them as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

 

[Centinel]

Despite my repeated efforts, I don't actually see an answer to my question, so let me rephrase.

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

You contend that the several states (not a single state) are the principal and the federal government is their agent. For argument's sake, let us assume this.

You also contend that the constitution forbids any state from unilaterally leaving the union.

If your conception of the Principal=Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances. Yours doesn't. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering them as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union. It's not even a sentence. Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

 

[Skylar]

Not only have you gotten answers, you're carefully omitted them from your citations of my posts...so you could ask the same questions again. See above regarding the Preamble defining who the Principal is.

You're ignoring answers.....as your argument is broken. Just as you ignored James Madison explictly contradicting you. Just as you ignored how the Principal Agent relationship works. Just as you've ignored logic when your conception of that relationship breaks when applied to the People and the State. Just as you've ignored history of our country which has never reflected your interpretation.

The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

If your conception of the Principal=Agent relationship is valid, why does it break when applied to the People and the States? If valid, it would work in both instances, rather than shattering in one as yours does.

For example, James Madison's conception of the relationship works in both instances. Yours doesn't. How do you explain this wild inconsistency? So far your 'explanation' has been to ignore them. And then pretend that since you ignored them, the inconsistencies don't exist.

Alas, they still do. If any single party is the same thing as the Parties to the Compact......then why isn't that the case with the People and the State?

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering them as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

 

[Centinel]

You seem to think that I am asking you a question about the principal-agent relationship. That is not my question. My question concerns the rules established by the states when they created their compact.

Does the compact forbid states from leaving?

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering them as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

 

[Skylar]

No, you're avoiding any mention of your own argument like it were on fire. Despite the Principal/Agent relationship being the beating heart of your entire argument. You know it doesn't work, so now you're refusing to discuss it.

But your gross misunderstanding of that relationship is at the root of your misconceptions about how the constitution works. As you confound the single party with the parties to the Constitutional Compact. They aren't the same thing. As James Madison, the Father of the Consittution, explained approaching 2 centuries ago:

You're ignoring who the Principal is. Who the decision maker is. Assuming that any individual state can interpret the constitution anyway they wish, isn't bound to the constitution and abandon it any time they wish, as an individual State is the Principal. And you've fallen into the *exact* fallacy that Madison refuted.

The Principal to the Constitutional Compact....is the People of the United States, exercising their authority through the Several States. And an individual State is neither the People of the United States nor the Several States. Rendering them as inadequate to unilaterally abandon the compact as an individual citizen is to declare their home no longer a part of the State in which they live.

Its not a decision a single party has the authority to make. Refuting your entire argument.

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

 

[Centinel]

The more pressing argument is that there is nothing in the compact made by the several sovereign states that prohibits any state from leaving the union. You contend otherwise. Can you cite the relevant language that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

For the fifth time: The Preamble. Specifically, 'We the People of the United States'.

We can go round and round as often as you like. But pretending you've never gotten an answer doesn't magically make the content of the thread change. You have your answer. Either address it or don't.

Just remember....your argument was such a self contradictory mess that you've had to abandoned in entirely. Now refusing to even discuss it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

'We the People of the United States' isn't a prohibition on a state leaving the union.

'We the People of the United States' defines who the Principal of the compact of the Constituton are. And an individual State isn't 'We the People of the United States'. Only the Principal can modify the compact.

You're stuck. So much so that you can't even mention the basis of your own argument: the Principal/Agent relationship.

There's a reason why our system of law has never reflected your interpret ions: we're not obligated to ignore the huge holes in your reasoning just because you refuse to discuss them.

Please look at article I, section 10. This lists the prohibitions on the states. Nothing in there like "No state may leave the union".

Violating the constitution isn't a power possessed by anyone. Read the Supremacy Clause. And modifications to the Constitution by a single state would be a violation. The compact can only be modified its Principal. See Article V.

In what way would exiting the union be a violation of the constition. Is there any language prohibiting a state from exiting the union? If not, an exit would not modify the compact nor would it be a violation.

What the United States consist of is a matter of the constitutional compact. Modifying that would require agreement from the Principal. Which an individual State isn't.

I've answered your question. You answer mine.

If your conception of the principal/agent relationship is valid, why can't a citizen unilaterally declare their property to be its own country, no longer under the authority of the State, its laws, or its officers?

Okay, here's your answer: Because the state won't let them.

A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals. The principals (the several states) already wrote their compact to allow a state to leave. Thus, there's no constitutional prohibition on a state doing so. Can you find any language forbidding it?