The U.S.A. Constitution!

[Centinel]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

 

[regent]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

 

[Centinel]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

 

[regent]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

Then why did they vote for a House based on people? The states could have kept the whole ball of wax for the states but the convention added a House for the people based on population. How did it work out, who has the power, the states or the people?

 

[Skylar]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

 

[Skylar]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

Then why did they vote for a House based on people? The states could have kept the whole ball of wax for the states but the convention added a House for the people based on population. How did it work out, who has the power, the states or the people?

The States can possess no intrinsic power. As they are a mere concept. The people are the only true seat of power. Any power possessed by the State is lent to them by the people. The Federal Government is also merely an agent of the people.

This would seem obvious. But Centinel is hung up on a secessionist argument that won't allow him to admit as much.

 

[Centinel]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

If we are to believe the framers it was we the people that created the Constitution, not we the states.

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarrre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

 

[Centinel]

The constitution established between the states.

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

 

[Skylar]

But who created the Constitution? Was it the states or the people's representatives and people's approval?

The states established the constitution.

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

 

[Centinel]

The states established the constitution.

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.

 

[Skylar]

And by your own admission, the States are mere agents of the people.

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

 

[Centinel]

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the first nine states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

Actually, ratification was the mechanism of establishment. And the constition was established between the states that ratified it.

 

[Centinel]

Yes, and as I said, the constitution was established between the states.

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

I've noticed that you have used the term "secessionist" in your recent posts. It seems as if you consider it a pejorative. I'd just like to point out that the constitution contains no prohibition on any state seceding from the union.

 

[Skylar]

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the first nine states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

Actually, ratification was the mechanism of establishment. And the constition was established between the states that ratified it.

But not the mechanism of *authority*. The States didn't act as agents on their authority. The States have no intrinsic authority. The States acted as agents for the people, using the *people's* authority. It is the people's authority that created the United States.

What you're citing is the mechanism of ratification. Not the basis of authority.

Which is ludicrously obvious. But you keep trying to polish your secessionist turd....and can't admit it. Which should tell you something.

 

[Centinel]

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the first nine states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

Actually, ratification was the mechanism of establishment. And the constition was established between the states that ratified it.

But not the mechanism of *authority*. The States didn't act as agents on their authority. The States have no intrinsic authority. The States acted as agents for the people, using the *people's* authority. It is the people's authority that created the United States.

What you're citing is the mechanism of ratification. Not the basis of authority.

Which is ludicrously obvious. But you keep trying to polish your secessionist turd....and can't admit it. Which should tell you something.

I'm just pointing out that, per the constitution, it was established between the states.

And what I'm citing is the mechanism of establishment, not ratification. Ratification was left to the states.

The states established the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

And as agents of the people, it was the people that created the States. As the States have zero intrinsic power. Any power possessed by a state is borrowed from the people.

Which is why the Constitution begins with 'We the People of the United States'. As the people are the authority from which all authority is borrowed by the State and Federal Governments.

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

I've noticed that you have used the term "secessionist" in your recent posts. It seems as if you consider it a pejorative. I'd just like to point out that the constitution contains no prohibition on any state seceding from the union.

And here we go....the same secessionist turd you always lay and desperately try to polish. There's really nothing more to you.

And sure it does. First, a State don't have the authority to deny the Federal Government any delegated power. As the 10th amendment makes clear. Jurisdiction of federal laws on State territory is most definitely one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government. Seceding denies the Federal government that power, violating the 10th amendment and numerous articles in the Constitution.

Same for territory. The States can't simply seize federal territory unilaterally. As that would be stripping the federal government of delegated authority yet again. And all State land is also federal land.

Third, the United States wasn't created by a State. It was created by the people of the Several States. And its only be undone by the same authority by which it was created: the authority of the people of the Several States. Says who? Says James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. 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. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

You ignore the distinction, embracing the very fallacy that Madison describes. The Founders didn't. And of course the Courts have rejected your nonsense.

You can imagine that you know the Constitution better than the USSC and James Madison combined. But you don't. There's a reason why your reasoning has been rejected by virtually every court to hear it.

 

[Centinel]

According to the constitution itself, it was established between the states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

I've noticed that you have used the term "secessionist" in your recent posts. It seems as if you consider it a pejorative. I'd just like to point out that the constitution contains no prohibition on any state seceding from the union.

And here we go....the same secessionist turd you always lay and desperately try to polish. There's really nothing more to you.

And sure it does. First, a State don't have the authority to deny the Federal Government any delegated power. As the 10th amendment makes clear. Jurisdiction of federal laws on State territory is most definitely one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government. Seceding denies the Federal government that power, violating the 10th amendment and numerous articles in the Constitution.

Same for territory. The States can't simply seize federal territory unilaterally. As that would be stripping the federal government of delegated authority yet again. And all State land is also federal land.

Third, the United States wasn't created by a State. It was created by the people of the Several States. And its only be undone by the same authority by which it was created: the authority of the people of the Several States. Says who? Says James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. 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. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

You ignore the distinction, embracing the very fallacy that Madison describes. The Founders didn't. And of course the Courts have rejected your nonsense.

You can imagine that you know the Constitution better than the USSC and James Madison combined. But you don't. There's a reason why your reasoning has been rejected by virtually every court to hear it.

As I'm sure you're aware, when the states established their union between themselves, they delegated to it s small set of specific legislative powers. Can you cite the language they included that prohibits a state from leaving the union?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and lastly....your own internal logic is just a steaming pile of horseshit. You insist that since the federal government is an agent of the principals the States, that the States can unilaterally secede from their agent.

But when this logic is applied to the agent of the State and its principals the people.....you've laughably argued that any individual person can secede themselves and their property from the United States.

Yet when I've asked you to show me *anything* in the documents, writings or conventions of the founders to back up such a steaming pile of pseudo-legal horeshit.......you've got nothing.

if your conception of the principal agent relationship were valid, they would work when applied to both the Federal Government and the People. But they break the moment we apply them to the people.

 

[Skylar]

Those are the terms of ratification. The People are the basis of the powers weilded. As the States have none of their own. They are *lent* power by the people, and act as nothing more than the agents of the people.

As does the Federal Government.

But you can't admit any of this despite it being gloriously obvious.....because of the bizarre semantics you've based your entire 'secessionist' nonsense.

Yes, those are the terms of establishing the constitution. It was established between the states that ratified it.

Those are the terms established for *ratification*. But not as the basis of authority. The authority is exclusively the people's. As they are the only intrinsic source of power. All other power is lent.

But again, as obvious as this is....your silly semantic 'secessionist' nonsense can't allow you to admit it.

Which is one of the many reasons your secessionist nonsense is just silly.

I've noticed that you have used the term "secessionist" in your recent posts. It seems as if you consider it a pejorative. I'd just like to point out that the constitution contains no prohibition on any state seceding from the union.

And here we go....the same secessionist turd you always lay and desperately try to polish. There's really nothing more to you.

And sure it does. First, a State don't have the authority to deny the Federal Government any delegated power. As the 10th amendment makes clear. Jurisdiction of federal laws on State territory is most definitely one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government. Seceding denies the Federal government that power, violating the 10th amendment and numerous articles in the Constitution.

Same for territory. The States can't simply seize federal territory unilaterally. As that would be stripping the federal government of delegated authority yet again. And all State land is also federal land.

Third, the United States wasn't created by a State. It was created by the people of the Several States. And its only be undone by the same authority by which it was created: the authority of the people of the Several States. Says who? Says James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison:

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. 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. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional.

James Madison
​

You ignore the distinction, embracing the very fallacy that Madison describes. The Founders didn't. And of course the Courts have rejected your nonsense.

You can imagine that you know the Constitution better than the USSC and James Madison combined. But you don't. There's a reason why your reasoning has been rejected by virtually every court to hear it.

Can you cite the language prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Any passage that extends federal law to the United States. Are you claiming that federal laws don't apply to States?

And of course why would I ignore Madison and instead believe you? You're literally arguing the fallacy that Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Both Madison and the constitution that the States are equally bound by the Constitution. You insist that a State can ignore the Constitution whenever it wishes.

Um, no. A State can't.