We the People

[Skylar]

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?

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

 

[Centinel]

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?

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

 

[Skylar]

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?

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

 

[Centinel]

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?

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

 

[Skylar]

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?

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

 

[Centinel]

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

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying, quite clearly....that your 'international treaty' babble is your own argument. And the constitution makes no mention of it. If you believe otherwise, show me where in the constitution there is any mention of the constitution being an 'international treaty'.

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Your characterization is your own argument. Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

 

[Centinel]

Okay, then based on that response it sounds like we both agree that the constitution was established between the states. Which was my original point to begin with.

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Your characterization is your own argument.

It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.

Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says "the states".

 

[Skylar]

Based on that response it sounds like you recognize that all your 'international treaty' claims are your own. As the constitution makes no mention of it.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Your characterization is your own argument.

It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.

Nor the law, history, the courts, the founders.....anyone really.

Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says "the states".

No, it most definitely says 'We the People of the United States'. The States were merely the agents the people used.

And you've already admitted that the States are nothing more than the agents of the people. Thus, the people created the Constitution, the States, the Federal Government, all of it.

 

[Centinel]

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Your characterization is your own argument.

It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.

Nor the law, history, the courts, the founders.....anyone really.

Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says "the states".

No, it most definitely says 'We the People of the United States'. The States were merely the agents the people used.

And you've already admitted that the States are nothing more than the agents of the people. Thus, the people created the Constitution, the States, the Federal Government, all of it.

It doesn't say that. It says between the states.

Then your 'international treaty' argument is your own. And not the argument made by the constitution.

See how that works? These are your standards in action. And you fail them utterly.

I characterized the constitution as an international treaty because it is a document that was ratified by sovereign states. You disagreed. I don't really care whether you agree or not, as it is irrelevant to the fact that the constitution was established between the states.

Your characterization is your own argument.

It's my own characterization. You don't have to agree with it.

Nor the law, history, the courts, the founders.....anyone really.

Not the argument made by the constitution....which never so much as mentions the constitution as being an 'international treaty'. The word 'sovereign' doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution either. You're thinking of the Articles of Confederation.

And of course the constitution was created by the People of the United States, using the States as their agents. My original point which you've never refuted. But instead, agreed with.

It doesn't say that. It says "the states".

No, it most definitely says 'We the People of the United States'. The States were merely the agents the people used.

And you've already admitted that the States are nothing more than the agents of the people. Thus, the people created the Constitution, the States, the Federal Government, all of it.

No, it says "established between the states".

 

[Tennyson]

The Constitution was a compact between the states and the preamble did not alter the Constitution being a compact between the states. Far too much emphasis is placed on the preamble to the Constitution and far too much is read into it.

The preamble was to read exactly as the preamble to the Articles of Confederation and the delegates created a preamble that copied the preamble of the Articles of Confederation. The first draft of the Constitution with a preamble that mirrored the Articles of Confederation was submitted by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787:

We, the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

“We the people” did not change the meaning or intent of the preamble submitted on August 6, 1787.

As the Philadelphia convention was coming to a close, several states would not commit to ratifying the Constitution, and Rhode Island did not even attend the convention. If the preamble submitted on August 6, 1787, were used, then if only one state did not ratify the Constitution, then a constitutional amendment would be required to remove the state that not ratify, and a constitutional amendment would be required each time a territory became a state.

In the Committee of Style, Gouverneur Morris remedied this issue by re-wording the preamble to its current language. Morris did this without consulting the delegates, and it caused an uproar of the delegates, and at the state’s ratifying conventions. Morris used the social contract theories of Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and the Iroquois's Great Law of Peace to craft the preamble. No one was under the impression that it was a compact created and approved by the people. Article VII could have dictated a popular statewide vote to cause the Constitution to be ratified by the people, but it did not. One example is the North Carolina ratifying convention on July 24, 1788:

Mr. Caldwell:

Mr. Chairman, if they mean, We, the people,--the people at large,--I conceive the expression is improper. Were not they who framed this Constitution the representatives of the legislatures of the different states? In my opinion, they had no power, from the people at large, to use their name, or to act for them. They were not delegated for that purpose.​

At the start of the convention, there was a dramatic and tone setting debate regarding the terms “national” and “federation.” Federation won as it was a league of states entering into a compact to give up a very limited set of state powers to the new federal, not national, government. Madison, Jefferson, the delegates at the Philadelphia convention, and the state ratifying conventions referred to the Constitution as a “compact” or a constitutional compact.