Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Sallow]

Our founding fathers were not conservative

Of course not. Conservatives don't start revolutions. I think they were called the Tories back then?

That's not entirely correct. Conservatives start revolutions to restore monarchies and bring in authoritarian governments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now..you find the part that allows Secession.

That's all you have? None of that speaks to anything I said.
Your have failed your homework assignment.

The Constitution doesnt NEED to 'allow' secession - the more important fact is that it doesn't PROHIBIT secession. Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now..you find the part that allows Secession.

That's all you have? None of that speaks to anything I said.
Your have failed your homework assignment.

The Constitution doesn't NEED to 'allow' secession - the more important fact is that it doesn't PROHIBIT secession. Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

Because you say so? The states would have "allowed" secession in the Constitution if the Founders had thought it necessary. They didn't, reasonable now don't, and your opinion is . . . a silly insignificant rant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[Mdn, the founding fathers would have laughed at you.

Mdn, you are the bully and cried when you were kicked in the face metaphorically.

Mdn, you told lies and you were forcefully corrected for it.

Mdn, this is what will always happen when you lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "Will of the Super Majority" is not the government of the land, only the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority from infringement by the super majority.

You fail to understand that with a 75% majority, the Constitution can be changed - and chaned in any manner you might choose to discuss.
This would include the elimination of the protections of the rights of the minority.

Then you are absolute lefty who believes in uber-democracy if you don't believe in classical liberalism. Thanks for outing yourself.

 

[Sallow]

Now..you find the part that allows Secession.

That's all you have? None of that speaks to anything I said.
Your have failed your homework assignment.

The Constitution doesnt NEED to 'allow' secession - the more important fact is that it doesn't PROHIBIT secession. Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

What??

So you are not going to even adhere to a standard you set up for me?

Gosh.

That's freakin amazing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesn't NEED to 'allow' secession - the more important fact is that it doesn't PROHIBIT secession. Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

Because you say so?

No...Amendment X says so.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Does the constitution delegate the power of states secession to the US government? Cite?
Does the constitution prohibit the states the power of secession? Cite?

Unless you can show where the Constitution delegates/prohibits these powers, the power, according to Amendment X remains with the states.

The states would have "allowed" secession in the Constitution if the Founders had thought it necessary.

See above.

They didn't, reasonable now don't, and your opinion is . . . a silly insignificant rant.

Says he who has no sound counter to the argument previously and presently presented.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 Shooter is certainly entitled to his uninformed opinion, but said opinion is worthless in the context of the Constitution, its history, and its interpretation.

Nothing more than the mindless nattering of a far right wing nut reactionary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution doesnt NEED to 'allow' secession - the more important fact is that it doesn't PROHIBIT secession. Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

What??
So you are not going to even adhere to a standard you set up for me?

-YOU- set up the standard for you, by arguing that the Constitution prohibits secession, et al. Nothing you have posted thus far in any way supports this assertion.

MY argument is centered around Amendment X, which notes that in order for a state to not retain a right - in this case, the right to leave the union, said right must be prohibited by the Constitution.

The constitution contains no such prohibition, and as such, the right to seceed is retained by the state.

Disagree? Cite the constitution, and be prepared to show how what you cite actually does what you say it does.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter is certainly entitled to his uninformed opinion, but said opinion is worthless in the context of the Constitution, its history, and its interpretation.

Says he who has no sound counter to the argument previously and presently presented.

Feel free to address my argument with something of substance - in particular, the citations from the Constitution that invalidate said argument.

Else, your response here is nothing more than a petulant 'nuh-uh!!!'

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution doesnt NEED to 'allow' secession - the more important fact is that it doesn't PROHIBIT secession. Given that, the states reserve the right, as per Amendment X.

What??
So you are not going to even adhere to a standard you set up for me?

-YOU- set up the standard for you, by arguing that the Constitution prohibits secession, et al. Nothing you have posted thus far in any way supports this assertion.

MY argument is centered around Amendment X, which notes that in order for a state to not retain a right - in this case, the right to leave the union, said right must be prohibited by the Constitution.

The constitution contains no such prohibition, and as such, the right to seceed is retained by the state.

Disagree? Cite the constitution, and be prepared to show how what you cite actually does what you say it does.

I posted an example of how a state can secede..

They can take it up with congress through legislation (Although I've never known that to happen..or even if it will) and if the legislation fails..that's it. It's over.

Anything else is rebellion. That's strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 Shooter is under the delusion that is opinion is somehow meaningful. Tell him to go tell SCOTUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I posted an example of how a state can secede..

Your example is fallacious, as Congress is given no power to allow/disallow such things.
Disagree? Cite the Constitution.

Further, your example, even if sound, in no way negates -my- argument as nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession of a state on its own accord.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter is under the delusion that is opinion is somehow meaningful. Tell him to go tell SCOTUS.

Says he who has no sound counter to the argument previously and presently presented.

Feel free to address my argument with something of substance - in particular, the citations from the Constitution that invalidate said argument.

Else, your response here is nothing more than a petulant 'nuh-uh!!!'

 

[JakeStarkey]

M14 Shooter, once again, you are not a constitutional scholar. Your opinion, while it is yours, yes, is meaningless about this issue.

 

[HinduPatriot]

The founding fathers were racist shitfaces. They should have been executed for their criminality.

JUST JOKING!!! (I like USA, cos it fights Muslims)

 

[Sallow]

I posted an example of how a state can secede..

Your example is fallacious, as Congress is given no power to allow/disallow such things.
Disagree? Cite the Constitution.

Further, your example, even if sound, in no way negates -my- argument as nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession of a state on its own accord.

Amazing.

But then again..some believe in Santa.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I posted an example of how a state can secede..

Your example is fallacious, as Congress is given no power to allow/disallow such things.
Disagree? Cite the Constitution.

Further, your example, even if sound, in no way negates -my- argument as nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession of a state on its own accord.

Amazing.
But then again..some believe in Santa.

Disagree?

All you need to do is cite the Constitution - both the parts that prove your premise and the parts tha negate mine.

But, you and I both know that you will not, because you and I both know that you can not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We all know, M14 Shooter, that you do not understand the Constitution, and your argument is nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 Shooter, once again, you are not a constitutional scholar. Your opinion, while it is yours, yes, is meaningless about this issue.

Says he who has no sound counter to the argument previously and presently presented.

Feel free to address my argument with something of substance - in particular, the citations from the Constitution that invalidate said argument.

Else, your response here is nothing more than a petulant 'nuh-uh!!!'