Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 54,242
- 16,467
- 2,250
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.
Applying your standard, what authority would the State have to stop them? Per you, the State is the agent of each individual person. With each individual being a principal .And a principal can interpret the law as they wish, do with their land as they wish, secede if they wish. With the agent having no authority to stop them. Per your reasoning, anyway.
If brute force is all it takes to make an action legally valid, then the strength of Union armies settled this legal matter years ago.
A state exiting the union wouldn't require a change to the compact by the principals.
Obviously they would. As it would change what the United States is consisted of. The United States, the agent of the Several States, would lose territory. The Several States directly or through their agent, would definitely get to say something about that. As they are the Principal. The 'parties to the Constitutional Compact' as Madison put it.