We the People

[Skylar]

But the words "we the people" were penned years before Rhode Island ratified, and RI never sent any delegates to the convention. So when the delegates wrote "we the people" they couldn't possibly have been speaking for the people of RI, could they?

The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?

So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?

The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?

So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.

Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?

Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:

Not you.

You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

You say that the Constitution didn't have the authority to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. The People of Rhodes Island obviously disagreed by ratifying the Constitution.

And the People of Rhodes Island trump you on what has the authority to represent the People of Rhodes Island.

 

[Centinel]

The words 'we the people' were penned before any State ratified it. What's your point?

So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?

So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.

Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?

Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:

Not you.

You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

So who are the delegates to the convention referring to when they say "we the people"? Are they referring to the people of rhode island who never sent any delegates to the convention?

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.

Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?

Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:

Not you.

You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

 

[Centinel]

We the People of the United States.

And if Rhodes Island is part of the United States, yes...obviously. Which Rhodes Island itself affirmed by ratifying the Constitution.

Again, what is your point?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.

Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?

Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:

Not you.

You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

 

[Skylar]

The delegates had no right or authority to speak for the people of Rhode Island. They only had authority to speak for the people of their own states.

So "we the people of the united states" is not necessarily a true statement, is it?

The State of Rhodes Island clearly disagreed.......as they ratified the constitution.

Who am I to believe? You...citing yourself? Or the People of the State of Rhodes Island, which ratified the very document you insist didn't have the authority to speak for them?

Once again, in any such contest there is always the same winner:

Not you.

You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

 

[Centinel]

You seem to be purposely missing my point, so I give up.

The fact remains that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

 

[Skylar]

The fact is that the constitution was created by the people of the United States. And that it created a new sovereign: the several states. With their agent the federal government.

A fact more thoroughly reaffirmed by the 14th amendment.

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

When have I ever said this?

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

 

[Centinel]

None of which refutes my original statement that the constitution was established between the states.

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

When have I ever said this?

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

No, I'm not.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution was created by the People of the United States using the States as their agent. As the phrase 'We the People of the United States' makes ludicrously clear. With Article 7 merely laying out the terms of ratification.

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

When have I ever said this?

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

No, I'm not.

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

 

[Centinel]

As I have pointed out, the constitution says that it would be established between the states. Are you saying this is not true?

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

When have I ever said this?

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

No, I'm not.

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

 

[Skylar]

I've said, quite simply, that the constitution was created by the People of the United States using the states as their agents. You recognize that the constitution was created by the People of the United States. You recognize states as agents of the people of those states.

And the People of Rhodes Island clearly recognizes the constitution has having the authority to speak for them.....as they ratified the constitution.

Are you saying that Rhodes Island didn't ratify the constitution?

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

When have I ever said this?

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

No, I'm not.

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

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.

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

 

[Centinel]

Of course I'm not saying that.

My question to you still remains. Are you denying that the constitution was established between the states?

When have I ever said this?

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

No, I'm not.

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

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.

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

 

[Skylar]

When have I ever said this?

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

I've said that the constitution was created BY the people of the United States using the States as their agents. Not 'between' the people of the United States using the States as their agents.

Are you claiming that the States are not the agents of the people of those states?

No, I'm not.

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

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.

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

 

[Centinel]

I thought you were disagreeing with me about that. What a waste of time.

No, I'm not.

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

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.

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.

However, none of this has anything to do with my initial, and as yet unrefuted, claim that the constitution was established between the states. It is an interstate (or international, if you choose) agreement.

 

[skye]

Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.

ok let's talk

for Hussein Obama this is the meaning..........

 

[Skylar]

Then we agree. The constitution was created by the People of the United States, using their agents the States.

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

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.

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.

There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in. An individual person has never had that authority.

You imagined it. Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?

The people, like the States.....exercise their authority over their agent through the critical threshold of the relevant majority. Not as an individual.

However, none of this has anything to do with my initial, and as yet unrefuted, claim that the constitution was established between the states. It is an interstate (or international, if you choose) agreement.

The States are merely agents of the people, as you've admitted. And it was the people that created the Constitution using their agents.

"We the people' are actual people. Not stand ins for States. Its the States that are stand ins for people.

 

[Centinel]

No, we don't agree.

My statement was that the constitution was established between the states. And the fact that it is an interstate agreement has not been refuted by you or anyone else.

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

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.

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.

There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in. And individual person has never had that authority.

You imagined it. Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?

You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.

However, none of this has anything to do with my initial, and as yet unrefuted, claim that the constitution was established between the states. It is an interstate (or international, if you choose) agreement.

The States are merely agents of the people, as you've admitted. And it was the people that created the Constitution using their agents.

"We the people' are actual people. Not stand ins for States.

Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

Your claim is that the constitution is an international treaty. And the founders said no such thing.
With the Supremecy Clause making it ludicrously clear that the Constitution is above any law of any State:

The Several States created the Federal government as their agent. Just as the people created the State as their agent. And both the Several States and the people exercise authority via the threshold of the relevant majority.

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.

There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in. And individual person has never had that authority.

You imagined it. Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?

You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.

I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.

If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.

But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.

There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.

Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.

With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.

We can run this loop as often as you'd like.

 

[Centinel]

My claim, made here We the People, is that the constitution was established between states. It is an interstate agreement.

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.

There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in. And individual person has never had that authority.

You imagined it. Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?

You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.

I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.

If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.

But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.

There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.

Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.

With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.

We can run this loop as often as you'd like.

I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.

 

[Skylar]

So now you're pretending you *didn't* claim the constitution was an international treaty? Of course you did. You're merely trying to back pedal.

And the constitution was created by We the People of the United States, exactly as it says. With the people of the United States using their agents, the States.

You've already admitted that the States are the agents of the people. Making any attempt to deny it now as useless as trying to distance yourself from your 'international treaty' nonsense.

I did say it is an international treaty. Or an interstate treaty. Nation. State. What's the difference? International law refers to relations between sovereign states. If you don't like the word international, then you can substitute interstate. Either way, I don't see much difference.

I'm not denying that a state is the agent of it's people.

There is definitely denying your nonsensical pseudo-legal horseshit that any individual person can 'secede' themselves and their property from the State they live in. And individual person has never had that authority.

You imagined it. Or are you going to try and deny saying this too?

You asked me a specific theoretical question and I gave you my opinion. None of which has to do with the constitution.

I was asking you about the consistent application of your own conception of the 'principal-agent' relationship. And your conception just shattered to pieces when we applied it consistently. As an individual person has never had the authority you imagine.

If your conception of the principal-agent relationship were valid, it would work both in the principal agent relation of the people to the State.....and the principal agent relation of the Several States to the Federal government.

But it doesn't. It breaks utterly and irrevocably when applied to reality.

There's a reason why your conceptions exist entirely inside your head. And not in our laws, our court rulings, our history, our constitution, or among the Founders.......who explicitly contradict you.

Okay, but the constitution was still established between the states.

With the States merely being agents of the people. With the people creating the constitution. And the states. And the federal government. All of these are agents of the people.

We can run this loop as often as you'd like.

I'm not sure how any of what you just said refutes my statement that the constitution was established between the states. I don't think you have refuted it at all, as a matter of fact.

When have I claimed to have 'refuted' you? I'm simply stating facts that you completely agree with. If you feel these facts are a 'refutation' of your claims, that's your business.

The constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

And can we take it from your complete abandonment of your conception of the principal agent relationship that you recognize your argument breaks when applied consistently?