The U.S.A. Constitution!

[Centinel]

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.

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

So let's say congress were to pass a law prohibiting states from leaving the union. Which of it's specific enumerated legislative powers (as enumerated in Art I, sec 8) would this law be necessary and proper for carrying into execution?

 

[Skylar]

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.

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

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

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

 

[Centinel]

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.

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

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

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

If so, please cite the law in question, and the tell us which of congress' enumerated powers that law is necessary and proper for carrying into execution.

 

[Skylar]

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.

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

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

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

 

[Centinel]

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.

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

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

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

 

[Skylar]

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.

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

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

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

 

[Centinel]

All federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. Any other law is no law at all.

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

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

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

 

[HenryBHough]

Constitution?

On yeah! Constitution!

Shit, I'm probably the only one left on this board old enough to remember when America HAD a Constitution!

 

[Skylar]

And you're arguing that a state can strip the Federal Government of that power within a State's territory. Despite the power being explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

That's a violation of the 10th amendment.

The power to enact federal law upon State territory IS a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a State lacks the authority to deny the Federal government that power.

It doesn't matter what the State Constitution says. The Federal Constitution is supreme law of the land. A State cannot violate the constitution by stripping the federal government of delegated powers.

You insist that they can. And you're obviously wrong. As Madison and every court ruling on the topic demonstrates:

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
​

Your willful ignorance really doesn't matter. As its not like we can't read what you ignore.

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

 

[Centinel]

Are you saying it's against federal law for a state to leave the union?

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

 

[Skylar]

Its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. When a State denies the Federal government jurisdiction of federal laws over a State, they strip the Federal government of a federally delegated power.

Which the Supremacy Clause makes clear a State lack the power to do....as the Constitution of the United States trumps State judges, State laws or State constitutions:

You insist that a State can violate the constitution. That no State is bound to the Constitution. The Constitution says otherwise. As does every court to rule on the matter. As does James Madison.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the courts and the Father of the Constitution.....and instead believe you?

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

 

[Centinel]

So what is your argument? Are you saying that it's against the law for a state to leave the union?

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

 

[Skylar]

For the 6th time....my argument is that its a violation of the constitution for a State to strip the Federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. Which secession does as it strips the federal government of the constitutionally delegated power to enact federal law upon State territory.

And that your argument is the very fallacy that James Madison described, confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States.

Now why would I or any other rational person ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, James Madison and every court to rule on the topic......and instead believe you?

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

 

[Centinel]

It's either legal or illegal for a state to leave the union. Which is it?

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

It is a violation of the constitution. And the Supremecy clause makes it clear that States lack the authority to violate the constitution.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison.

Me, I just get to point and laugh.

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

Just FYI.....you lost the moment you ignored James Madison and argued that any individual could secede themselves and their property from the United States.

 

[Centinel]

So it sounds like you're saying it's illegal. Can you say what federal law would be violated by a state leaving the union?

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

 

[Skylar]

It sounds to me like I'm saying its a violation of the constitution. See post 42 for details.

The U.S.A. Constitution!

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

 

[Centinel]

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

 

[Skylar]

It strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power which the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause make clear a State lack the authority to do.

This backed by every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself.

Why would I ignore the constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court ruling on the topic and James Madison himself ....

.....and instead believe you?

So you admit that it's not against the law. Thanks.

So you admit that a State stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a constitutional violation and is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause.

Thanks.

A state leaving the union is not against any constitutionally based law. Therefore, any state is legally permitted to leave the union.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is a violation of the constitution. And the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have yet to disprove this.

It's on you to prove that secession is against the law.

I've already demonstrated that unilateral secession strips the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power, thus violating the Supreme Law of the Land....the US Constitution itself.

See post 42 for details. The U.S.A. Constitution!

You can ignore all you like. But you can't make us ignore the Constitution, Supremacy clause, the 10th amendment, every court to rule on the topic nor James Madison himself.

You lose again.

So there is a federal law prohibiting a state from leaving the union?

Are you saying that the Constitution isn't the Supreme Law of the Land? Because the Supremacy Clause would contradict you if you did:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thus a violation of the constitution is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

You lose again.