The U.S.A. Constitution!

[Skylar]

And how does the State exit the union without stripping the federal government of legislative power of that state's territory. You're skipping a rather important step.

There's no law against a state leaving the union, and incidentally stripping the union of legislative power over that state's territory.

And where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution? The Supremacy clause extends the Constitution to all States as the Supreme Law of the Land.

You do understand what 'Supreme' means, right?

Yep. The constitution, and all laws made pursuant to it, are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made in pursuance to the constitution prohibits a state from leaving the union?

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution?

As stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. As no state possesses this authority.

The several states do.

Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.

I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

You say otherwise. The Constitution, James Madison and every court case to hear this issue contradict you.

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you? Why would any rational person?

 

[Centinel]

Stupid question. You know states have been added to the union.

Its not a stupid question at all. As you're describing extra-constitutional processes as the basis of your argument. If you're planning on using similarly extra-constitutional processes to add Puerto Rico.....then obviously it wouldn't be constitutional.

So describe the process by which Puerto Rico would be added, citing the Constitution to back your claims.

I'm not describing an extra-constitutional process. I'm describing the perfectly constitutional and legal act of a state leaving the union it voluntarily joined.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely extra-constitutional. As no state possesses this authority.

Actually every state has this authority. There is no law pursuant to the constitution against it, therefore it is authorized.

The 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause say otherwise:

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 legislative power over the territory of every State is most definitely a power delegated to the Federal govermnent. Ergo, its not a power the State possess.

And the Supremecy Clause makes it clear that the States are subject to the Constitution.

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 in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 6, paragraph 2

You're insisting the exact opposite. That any state can strip the federal government of all powers at their whim and isn't bound to the constitution.

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.

Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?

 

[koshergrl]

Stupid question. You know states have been added to the union.

Its not a stupid question at all. As you're describing extra-constitutional processes as the basis of your argument. If you're planning on using similarly extra-constitutional processes to add Puerto Rico.....then obviously it wouldn't be constitutional.

So describe the process by which Puerto Rico would be added, citing the Constitution to back your claims.

I'm not describing an extra-constitutional process. I'm describing the perfectly constitutional and legal act of a state leaving the union it voluntarily joined.

A state stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely extra-constitutional. As no state possesses this authority.

Actually every state has this authority. There is no law pursuant to the constitution against it, therefore it is authorized.

The 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause say otherwise:

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 legislative power over the territory of every State is most definitely a power delegated to the Federal govermnent. Ergo, its not a power the State possess.

And the Supremecy Clause makes it clear that the States are subject to the Constitution.

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 in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article 6, paragraph 2

You're insisting the exact opposite. That any state can strip the federal government of all powers at their whim and isn't bound to the constitution.

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't making sense. But it's fun that you're trying.

 

[Centinel]

There's no law against a state leaving the union, and incidentally stripping the union of legislative power over that state's territory.

And where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution? The Supremacy clause extends the Constitution to all States as the Supreme Law of the Land.

You do understand what 'Supreme' means, right?

Yep. The constitution, and all laws made pursuant to it, are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made in pursuance to the constitution prohibits a state from leaving the union?

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution?

As stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. As no state possesses this authority.

The several states do.

Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.

I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

So you're admitting that there's no law, made pursuant to the constitution, that makes secession illegal.

I agree. There is not such legitimate law. Thus, secession isn't against the law.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.

Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?[/QUOTE]

You left out a rather important part: the Constitution itself.

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;

The constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. You've already been forced to admit this. Making your obtuse and awkward omission of the Constitution itself particularly bizarre.

Irrelevant. But bizarre.

And the Constitution delegates powers to the Federal government that no state has the authority to strip from them. The Several States? Sure. A single state? Nope.

Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.

 

[Centinel]

Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.

You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal. If you wish to support this claim you need to cite the language in the constitution forbidding secession. Otherwise your claim is unfounded and presumed false.

So far you have failed to support your claim. You have offered opinion. But no constitutional language forbidding secession.

 

[Skylar]

And where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution? The Supremacy clause extends the Constitution to all States as the Supreme Law of the Land.

You do understand what 'Supreme' means, right?

Yep. The constitution, and all laws made pursuant to it, are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made in pursuance to the constitution prohibits a state from leaving the union?

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution?

As stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. As no state possesses this authority.

The several states do.

Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.

I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

So you're admitting that there's no law, made pursuant to the constitution, that makes secession illegal.

More accurately, I've cited the Constitution as law. The Supreme Law of the Land. And the Constitution doesn't allow the States to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

As the authority of the State to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power isn't authority possessed by any state.

 

[Skylar]

You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.

I've claimed that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And that secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Something the States lacks the authority to do. Show us where in the Constitution the State is granted the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power and you win.

You can't. As the constitution includes no such power for any State. Which is why you lost.

 

[Centinel]

Yep. The constitution, and all laws made pursuant to it, are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made in pursuance to the constitution prohibits a state from leaving the union?

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution?

As stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. As no state possesses this authority.

The several states do.

Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.

I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

So you're admitting that there's no law, made pursuant to the constitution, that makes secession illegal.

More accurately, I've cited the Constitution as law. The Supreme Law of the Land. And the Constitution doesn't allow the States to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

As the authority of the State to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power isn't authority possessed by any state.

Sorry. But it's not my job to explain the effects of a state leaving the union. Because it's not against the law. If you claim it is against the law, please cite the relevant legislative power.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.

Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?

You left out a rather important part: the Constitution itself.

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;

The constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. You've already been forced to admit this. Making your obtuse and awkward omission of the Constitution itself particularly bizarre.

Irrelevant. But bizarre.

And the Constitution delegates powers to the Federal government that no state has the authority to strip from them. The Several States? Sure. A single state? Nope.

Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.

We don't have the authority to strip their constitutional authority..as far as it goes.
[/quote]

So if Maine seceded......the Federal government still has legislative powers over Maine's territory?

 

[Centinel]

You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.

I've claimed that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And that secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

That's your opinion.

Something the States lacks the authority to do. Show us where in the Constitution the State is granted the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power and you win.

You can't. As the constitution includes no such power for any State. Which is why you lost.

The fact of the matter is that it's not constitutionally illegal for a state to leave the union.

 

[Skylar]

You didn't answer my question. Where does the Constitution indicate that there needs to be law forbidding a State from violating the Constitution?

As stripping the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power is most definitely a violation of the Constitution. As no state possesses this authority.

The several states do.

Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.

I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

So you're admitting that there's no law, made pursuant to the constitution, that makes secession illegal.

More accurately, I've cited the Constitution as law. The Supreme Law of the Land. And the Constitution doesn't allow the States to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

As the authority of the State to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power isn't authority possessed by any state.

Sorry. But it's not my job to explain the effects of a state leaving the union.

No one has asked you to 'explain the effect'. Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

And you can't. It can't be done by a single State. It would require the Several States....just as it would to create a new state.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time. Which might explain why every court contradicts you, the constitution contradicts you, even James Madison contradicts you.

Because it's not against the law. If you claim it is against the law, please cite the relevant legislative power.

It violates the constitution. And the constitution is law.

Try again.

 

[Centinel]

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.

Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?

You left out a rather important part: the Constitution itself.

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;

The constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. You've already been forced to admit this. Making your obtuse and awkward omission of the Constitution itself particularly bizarre.

Irrelevant. But bizarre.

And the Constitution delegates powers to the Federal government that no state has the authority to strip from them. The Several States? Sure. A single state? Nope.

Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.

We don't have the authority to strip their constitutional authority..as far as it goes.

So if Maine seceded......the Federal government still has legislative powers over Maine's territory?[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. There is no law forbidding a state from leaving the union. If you claim there is, then cite it.

 

[Centinel]

Um, I hate to have to point this out to you, but if there's not a law against something, then it's legal to do.

I hate to have to point this out to you....but the constitution is law. The Supreme Law of the Land, in fact.

And the powers that would be stripped from the federal government with secession are most definitely delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers is something no state has the authority to do.

So you're admitting that there's no law, made pursuant to the constitution, that makes secession illegal.

More accurately, I've cited the Constitution as law. The Supreme Law of the Land. And the Constitution doesn't allow the States to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

As the authority of the State to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power isn't authority possessed by any state.

Sorry. But it's not my job to explain the effects of a state leaving the union.

No one has asked you to 'explain the effect'. Until you can explain how a State would unilaterally leave the union without stripping the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.......then you're describing an extra-constitutional process.

And you can't.

Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time. Which might explain why every court contradicts you, the constitution contradicts you, even James Madison contradicts you.

Because it's not against the law. If you claim it is against the law, please cite the relevant legislative power.

It violates the constitution. And the constitution is law.

Try again.

It doesn't violate the constitution, and there is no law against it. Thus it's legal.

 

[koshergrl]

The Constitution says otherwise. And any contest between your personal opinion and the Constitution....the Constitution wins.

Yes, the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land. So which law, made pursuant to the constitution, makes it illegal for a state to leave the union?

You left out a rather important part: the Constitution itself.

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;

The constitution itself is the Supreme Law of the Land. You've already been forced to admit this. Making your obtuse and awkward omission of the Constitution itself particularly bizarre.

Irrelevant. But bizarre.

And the Constitution delegates powers to the Federal government that no state has the authority to strip from them. The Several States? Sure. A single state? Nope.

Again, you're making the classic blunder described by Madison, confounding the single party with the parties to the compact of the United States.

We don't have the authority to strip their constitutional authority..as far as it goes.

So if Maine seceded......the Federal government still has legislative powers over Maine's territory?[/QUOTE]

Maine isn't a TERRITORY. It is a STATE. And seceding from the union won't make it magically into a TERRITORY.

A TERRITORY is a tract of land prior to becoming a state. Upon being made into a STATE, a TERRITORY is no longer under the control of the feds. It is under the control ONLY of the state. And it will not "revert". I don't know where you're getting that garbage, but it's nonsense, and it's unconstitutional.

 

[koshergrl]

You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.

I've claimed that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And that secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Something the States lacks the authority to do. Show us where in the Constitution the State is granted the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power and you win.

You can't. As the constitution includes no such power for any State. Which is why you lost.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're making stuff up. He didn't lose.

Show where the constitution says it's illegal to secede, or shut the fuck up. You're boring and stupidly ignorant.

 

[Skylar]

You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.

I've claimed that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And that secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

That's your opinion.

The lack of authority to secede isn't my opinion. Its case law. Your argument has literally never worked in any US court, ever.

Mine has a perfect record of sucess. And of course is backed by James Madison himself:

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 choose to insist that you know the constitution is supposed to mean better than James Madison and the courts.

Um, no. You don't.

 

[koshergrl]

Unconstitutional case law is irrelevant. And you didn't cite it.

 

[Centinel]

You have claimed that, per the constitution, secession is illegal.

I've claimed that a State lacks the authority to strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And that secession would strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

That's your opinion.

The lack of authority to secede isn't my opinion. Its case law. Your argument has literally never worked in any US court, ever.

Mine has a perfect record of sucess. And of course is backed by James Madison himself:

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 choose to insist that you know the constitution is supposed to mean better than James Madison and the courts.

Um, no. You don't.

So I guess we're done. You claimed that, per the constitution, it's illegal for a state to secede, but when asked to support your claim, you have failed to provide the relevant law.

Nice try.

 

[koshergrl]

"Absolved by an intolerable abuse of power"..you're arguing against yourself.

But even Madison's statements aren't the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says states can't secede.

That's because the Constitution was created for the express purpose of giving states the POWER to throw off the shackles of an insufferable government should they need to.