The U.S.A. Constitution!

[Skylar]

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.

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

 

[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.

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

I will again put forth my argument: Given that 1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states and 2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited, therefore the power to leave the union is a retained power and may be exercised at will by any state that chooses to do so.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

 

[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.

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

So which of these is false?

 

[Skylar]

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.

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

Your argument was refuted months ago. As the power you assume a State has to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers and modify the compact as a single party......it doesn't exist.

You don't understand how the constitution works. Says who? Says James Madison.

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.

James Madison
​

So you laughably insist that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you see why your assertions have a perfect record of failure in court?

 

[Centinel]

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.

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

Your argument was refuted months ago. As the power you assume a State has to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers and modify the compact as a single party......it doesn't exist.

You don't understand how the constitution works. Says who? Says James Madison.

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.

James Madison
​

So you laughably insist that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you see why your assertions have a perfect record of failure in court?

Okay, let me know if you ever feel you can falsify any of these premises:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

Until then, my argument stands.

 

[Skylar]

You're arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact. I and James Madison argue that the parties to the constitution are required to do so, and that the single party is bound to the compact.

What's more likely.....that James Madison doesn't understand how the constitution is supposed to work?

Or that you don't?

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

Your argument was refuted months ago. As the power you assume a State has to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers and modify the compact as a single party......it doesn't exist.

You don't understand how the constitution works. Says who? Says James Madison.

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.

James Madison
​

So you laughably insist that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you see why your assertions have a perfect record of failure in court?

Okay, let me know if you ever feel you can falsify any of these premises:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

Until then, my argument stands.

Nope. Your argument has never stood. As you simply don't understand how the constitution works. You're fundamentally confused on how the compact is modified, thinking that any individual state can modify it. Nor is is any state bound to it.

And as James Madison makes clear....you're obviously confused.

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.

James Madison

Your argument breaks in the exact same place it always has: your profound misunderstanding of the constitution itself.

 

[Centinel]

No, I'm not arguing that the single party has the authority to modify the compact.

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

Your argument was refuted months ago. As the power you assume a State has to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers and modify the compact as a single party......it doesn't exist.

You don't understand how the constitution works. Says who? Says James Madison.

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.

James Madison
​

So you laughably insist that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you see why your assertions have a perfect record of failure in court?

Okay, let me know if you ever feel you can falsify any of these premises:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

Until then, my argument stands.

Nope. Your argument has never stood. As you simply don't understand how the constitution works. You're fundamentally confused on how the compact is modified, thinking that any individual state can modify it. Nor is is any state bound to it.

And as James Madison makes clear....you're obviously confused.

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.

James Madison

Your argument breaks in the exact same place it always has: your profound misunderstanding of the constitution itself.

Yet the fact remains that:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

You can yammer all you want, but you can't change those facts.

Also, this could go on forever with you avoiding addressing the facts, so I'm most likely not going to respond to another one of your "you don't understand the constitution" posts.

I'll check back periodically to see if you address my actual argument. If you don't, I'm done.

Later.

 

[Skylar]

That's exactly what you're arguing, as you're claiming that a single state, all by itself, can strip the federal government of powers, change the number of states in the union, and seize the constitutionally delegated powers and territory for itself.

As James Madison made clear, that's not authority that a single party has. With your assumptions being a 'fallacy', adverse to 'common sense and common justice'.

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
​

James Madison understands the constitution better than you do.

You can't get around that.

So I see you wish to refute my argument. I'll list my premises again:

Your argument was refuted months ago. As the power you assume a State has to strip the federal government of constitutionally delegated powers and modify the compact as a single party......it doesn't exist.

You don't understand how the constitution works. Says who? Says James Madison.

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.

James Madison
​

So you laughably insist that James Madison didn't understand the Constitution. But you do.

Can you see why your assertions have a perfect record of failure in court?

Okay, let me know if you ever feel you can falsify any of these premises:

1) the powers not prohibited to the states are retained by the states
2) the power to leave the union isn't prohibited

Until then, my argument stands.

Nope. Your argument has never stood. As you simply don't understand how the constitution works. You're fundamentally confused on how the compact is modified, thinking that any individual state can modify it. Nor is is any state bound to it.

And as James Madison makes clear....you're obviously confused.

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.

James Madison

Your argument breaks in the exact same place it always has: your profound misunderstanding of the constitution itself.

Yet the fact remains that:

The fact remains that you've misunderstood what the constitution means and how it works. The fact is that the single party doesn't have the authority to modify the compact nor strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegate powers.

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.

James Madison

Ignore as you wish. It really doesn't matter. The Supreme Court resolved this issue legally 140 years ago. And James Madison destroyed your fallacy 'adverse to common sense and common justice' about 180 years ago.

You simply don't understand the constitution or how it works.