The U.S.A. Constitution!

[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.

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.

As you obviously know I've claimed that secession violates the constitution as it strips the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something no state has the authority to do.

And you were done before you got here. As no court nor law recognizes your pseudo-legal nonsense as having any legal validity. You literally had to ignore James Madison and insist you knew better on what the constitution was supposed to mean.

Enjoy irrelevance. Legally, historically and philosophically.

 

[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.

As you obviously know I've claimed that secession violates the constitution as it strips the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something no state has the authority to do.

Yes, you stated your opinion many times. But you've failed to produce any actual constitutional evidence supporting your claim that secession is illegal. Can you point to any of congress' legislative powers for which a law would be necessary and proper to carry into execution that would criminalize secession?

 

[Skylar]

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.

As you obviously know I've claimed that secession violates the constitution as it strips the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers. Something no state has the authority to do.

Yes, you stated your opinion many times.

Secession being rejected as a power of the State isn't my opinion. Its caselaw. The Supreme Court heard secession arguments and rejected them.

Nor am I citing me. I'm citing James Madison. Whom you ignore....for no particular reason:

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 insist that James Madison, the Father of the Constitution is wrong. And you're right.

Laughing....nope.

But you've failed to produce any actual constitutional evidence supporting your claim that secession is illegal. Can you point to any of congress' legislative powers for which a law would be necessary and proper to carry into execution that would criminalize secession?

Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.

You've simply ignored the Constitution. And James Madison. And every court decision on the matter.

You lost before you ever showed up.

 

[Centinel]

Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.

No. The government of the united states would continue to have all the very same powers it had prior to a state seceding.

Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?

 

[Skylar]

Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.

No. The government of the united states would continue to have all the very same powers it had prior to a state seceding.

Nope. As the Federal Government wouldn't have any of the powers in the territory of the State that seceded, being stripped of all them despite each being constitutionally delegated.

A state lacks the authority to strip the federal government of *any* powers. Making secession a violation of the constitution.

Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?

Right after you describe, in detail and with citations, the exact process of a State being added to the union.

 

[Centinel]

Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.

No. The government of the united states would continue to have all the very same powers it had prior to a state seceding.

Nope. As the Federal Government wouldn't have any of the powers in the territory of the State that seceded, being stripped of all them despite each being constitutionally delegated.

A state lacks the authority to strip the federal government of *any* powers. Making secession a violation of the constitution.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids a state from seceding and stripping the united states government of jurisdiction over its territory?

Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?

Right after you describe, in detail and with citations, the exact process of a State being added to the union.

Why should I do this? I don't really care.

Can you cite which of congress' legislative powers would be eliminated?

 

[Skylar]

Obvious nonsense. I've shown you the exact constitutionally delegated powers a State would strip from the Federal government if they tried to secede. And both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment that would prevent the State from doing so.

No. The government of the united states would continue to have all the very same powers it had prior to a state seceding.

Nope. As the Federal Government wouldn't have any of the powers in the territory of the State that seceded, being stripped of all them despite each being constitutionally delegated.

A state lacks the authority to strip the federal government of *any* powers. Making secession a violation of the constitution.

Can you cite the language in the constitution that forbids a state from seceding and stripping the united states government of jurisdiction over its territory?

See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?

Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses.

Why should I do this? I don't really care.

Why would I list the legislative powers when you can read them in Article 1 of the Constitution?

 

[Centinel]

See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?

Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses.

The states may do anything that is not prohibited. The small list of prohibitions on the states are listed in art I, section 10. As you can see, there is no prohibition on a state seceding and stripping the federal government of jurisdiction over its territory. Therefore, it is permitted.

 

[Skylar]

See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?

Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses.

The states may do anything that is not prohibited.

The 10th amendment demonstrates that the states do not possess powers delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Article 1 delegates the legislative power to the Federal Government. And the Supremacy clause affirms that the Constitution applies to the States.

Show us where in the Constitution it explicitly says that a State may strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

 

[Centinel]

See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?

Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses.

The states may do anything that is not prohibited.

The 10th amendment demonstrates that the states do not possess powers delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Article 1 delegates the legislative power to the Federal Government. And the Supremacy clause affirms that the Constitution applies to the States.

Show us where in the Constitution it explicitly says that a State may strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Again, you misunderstand the structure of the constitution. All powers not delegated to the union nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states (10th amendment). There is no prohibition on a state leaving the union, therefore it is a retained power and states may exercise that power at will.

 

[Skylar]

See post 44. Now, can you cite the language in the constitution that allows a State to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers?

Of course not. Its not a power any state possesses.

The states may do anything that is not prohibited.

The 10th amendment demonstrates that the states do not possess powers delegated to the Federal government by the constitution. Article 1 delegates the legislative power to the Federal Government. And the Supremacy clause affirms that the Constitution applies to the States.

Show us where in the Constitution it explicitly says that a State may strip the Federal government of constitutionally delegated powers.

Again, you misunderstand the structure of the constitution.

Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:

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

​

Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.

 

[Centinel]

Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:


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

Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you don't understand James Madison.

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:


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

Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you don't understand James Madison.

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a 'fallacy' and adverse to 'common sense and common justice.'

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

 

[Centinel]

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:


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

Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you don't understand James Madison.

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

Not according to James Madison, who insists that a single party lacks such authority to modify the compact. But is instead bound to the compact. Your argument was dismissed by Madison as a 'fallacy' and adverse to common sense and common justice'.

Now what's more likely.....that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Or that you don't?

 

[Centinel]

Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:


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

Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you don't understand James Madison.

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

Not according to James Madison, who insists that a single party lacks such authority to modify the compact. But is instead bound to the compact. Your argument was dismissed by Madison as a 'fallacy' and adverse to common sense and common justice'.

Now what's more likely.....that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Or that you don't?

And does James Madison cite the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union? Remember, per the constitution, powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave, since it is not prohibited, is retained by the states and may be exercised at will.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, its you who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. As James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, lays out how your reasoning doesn't work:


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

Smiling....so James Madison doesn't understand how the Constitution works? Or is it just you?

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you don't understand James Madison.

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

Not according to James Madison, who insists that a single party lacks such authority to modify the compact. But is instead bound to the compact. Your argument was dismissed by Madison as a 'fallacy' and adverse to common sense and common justice'.

Now what's more likely.....that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Or that you don't?

And does James Madison cite the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union? Remember, per the constitution, powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave, since it is not prohibited, is retained by the states and may be exercised at will.

So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Seriously?

 

[Centinel]

Perhaps you don't understand James Madison.

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

Not according to James Madison, who insists that a single party lacks such authority to modify the compact. But is instead bound to the compact. Your argument was dismissed by Madison as a 'fallacy' and adverse to common sense and common justice'.

Now what's more likely.....that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Or that you don't?

And does James Madison cite the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union? Remember, per the constitution, powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave, since it is not prohibited, is retained by the states and may be exercised at will.

So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Seriously?

Neither he nor you have shown the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. Powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave the union isn't prohibited, thus it is retained and may be exercised at will.

 

[Skylar]

Given that he rejected the authority of a State to secede unilaterally, its pretty obvious that its you who is confused.

Madison recognizes what I recognize: that a single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact. It takes the parties of the compact itself to do so. You insist that a single party can. Madison dismisses your profound misunderstanding as a fallacy.

Now what's more likely.....that Madison doesn't understand the Constitution? Or that you don't?

The constitution says: "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."

Article I, section 10 lists the prohibitions on the states, and it DOES NOT prohibit any state from leaving the union.

Therefore, per the constitution, the power to leave the union is reserved to the states. They may exercise that power at will.

Not according to James Madison, who insists that a single party lacks such authority to modify the compact. But is instead bound to the compact. Your argument was dismissed by Madison as a 'fallacy' and adverse to common sense and common justice'.

Now what's more likely.....that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Or that you don't?

And does James Madison cite the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union? Remember, per the constitution, powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave, since it is not prohibited, is retained by the states and may be exercised at will.

So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution?

Seriously?

Neither he nor you have shown the language in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving. Powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave the union isn't prohibited, thus it is retained and may be exercised at will.

So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you understand why a rational person might be a little skeptical of your assertion? Especially given the perfect record of failure your claims have garnered in every court to hear them?

 

[Centinel]

So you're arguing that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you understand why a rational person might be a little skeptical of your assertion? Especially given the perfect record of failure your claims have garnered in every court to hear them?

I'm arguing that the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states. The power to leave the union isn't prohibited, thus it is retained and may be exercised at will.