We the People

[Centinel]

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.

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

 

[Skylar]

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
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.

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

 

[Centinel]

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
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.

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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
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.

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

And you admit that We the People are the People of the United States.

And you admit that the People of Rhodes Island recognize the constitution as having the authority to speak for them......as they ratified the document.

And you won't touch your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship with a 10 foot pole.

That's progress!

 

[Centinel]

I
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.

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.

And you won't touch your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship with a 10 foot pole.

My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.

Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.

The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.

With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.

My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.

Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.

......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.

.....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are the People of the United States.

 

[Centinel]

Good. I'm glad that you affirm my original statement that the constitution was established between the states. In that case, I can see no disagreement on the subject.

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.

Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.

The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.

With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.

My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.

Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.

......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.

.....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are the People of the United States.

None of which refutes the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

I'm glad you recognize that the states are merely agents of the people. And it was the people that created the constitution, the states, the federal government, all of it.

I'm also glad that you've chosen to abandon your ludicrous conception of the principal agent relationship. As it obviously shatters when applied consistently.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.

Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.

The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.

With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.

My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.

Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.

......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.

.....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are the People of the United States.

None of which refutes the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

 

[Centinel]

......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.

It's obvious that a state is the agent of its people.

And the constitution was established between the states.

Then you admit that it was the constitution was created by the people through their agents the States.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the constitution was established between the states.

Which you've admitted are the agents of the people. With you having literally said 'I agree, the constitution was created by the people'.

The constitution was created by their people using their agent, the States. Whether or not you 'say' it again doesn't really matter. You've already admitted to all of it.

With the Constitution making it ludicrously clear that 'We the People of the United States' is who created the constitution.

My conceptions don't affect the constitution, and the constitution says that it is established between the states.

Which has nothing to do with the crippling inconsistencies of your conception of the principal agent relationship. Or why I was able to force you to completely abandon them.

......and your claims about the constitution not being authorized to speak for the People of Rhodes Island. Which you also won't touch with a 10 foot pole. And rightly so...it was nonsense.

.....and you admitting that the 'We the People' referenced by the Constitution....are the People of the United States.

None of which refutes the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I don't recall saying you said anything.

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

My original point, which has yet to be refuted, was that the constitution was established between the states.

 

[dblack]

Were you under the impression that it means "only some of the people"?

Not at all. But if you believe it means only the majority of the people, then you apparently do.

We the People means all of the people, not just the majority. In particular, it holds society - the people - above the government. The founders used the phrase to emphasize that government serves the people, not the other way around.

Also incorrect.

It means that the people and their government are one in the same, where the Constitution the people created invests in government the authority to act at the behest of the people through their elected representatives, consistent with a republican form of government.

This, to me, is the most interesting aspect of the current conceptions of "We the People". The idea that the people and their government are one in the same is a common theme among those who invoke the phrase as a rallying cry for democratic government. In my view, they mistake "the majority of the people" for "we the people". They make the unquestioned assumption that if majority wills it, it should be so.

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I don't recall saying you said anything.

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

 

[Centinel]

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I don't recall saying you said anything.

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I don't recall saying you said anything.

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

 

[Centinel]

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I don't recall saying you said anything.

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

 

[Skylar]

Strawman. When did I ever say it did?

I don't recall saying you said anything.

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?

I said instead the constitution was created by the people using their agent, the States. All of which you've already admitted.

So we both agree I'm right. While I've debunked a litany of your nonsense, including your entire conception of the principal agent relationship, your absurd conclusion that the constitution wasn't authorized to speak for the people of Rhode Island, with you admitting that 'We the People'.....was in fact the People of the United States.

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?

 

[Centinel]

I don't recall saying you said anything.

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?

I don't agree you're right, so please don't say I do.

So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?

It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

 

[Skylar]

Then why this obsessive babble about 'refuting' points that no one is claiming to refute?

This imaginary 'refutation' is the only thing you'll talk about. You've abandoned every other claim you've made. Your 'principle agent' gibberish, abandoned. Your 'Rhodes Island' nonsense, abandoned. With you having already admitted that 'We the People'.....is the People of the United States.

But tell us again how the point that no one is claiming to refute isn't refuted?
So you didn't say 'I agree. The people did create the constitution'? Because I can quote you doing that.

Or are you claiming that you didn't say that the states are the agents of the people? Because I can quote you doing that too?

With everyone from James Madison to the Constitution itself affirming that the We the People of the United States created the constitution. The people created the States too. And the Federal government.

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?

It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.

But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?

 

[Centinel]

The constitution says that it is being established between states. It's an interstate agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?

It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.

But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?

It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.

 

[Skylar]

Show me anywhere in the constitution is stays that the constitution is an 'international treaty'.

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?

It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.

But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?

It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.

Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.

And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.

 

[Centinel]

It doesn't.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

Then we'll toss your 'international treaty' horseshit on the midden heap with all the other nonsense you've abandoned.

So where does the constitution refer to itself as an 'agreement'?

It doesn't refer to itself as an agreement, nor did I say it did. I also never said that the constitution referred to itself as an international treaty.

The states established the constitution between themselves. It is an inter-state agreement.

So 'interstate', 'agreement' 'international' and 'treaty' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution in reference to the constitution. Meaning that your argument fails your own standards.

But you insist that the constitution is an 'international treaty'?

It's not my argument. It's a matter of fact. The constitution was established between the states. It says so right there in article seven.

Its entirely your argument. You've already admitted that the constitution doesn't say a thing about an 'international treaty'. That just you, citing yourself.

And as the wasteland of pseudo-legal gibberish that you've offered and then abandoned demonstrates......you're not the best source.

So are you trying to say that my statement that the states established the constitution between themselves is untrue?