We the People

[Centinel]

Article seven makes it clear that the constitution was established between the states that ratified it.

With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.

The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.

'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.

Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.

The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.

Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.

The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.

Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.

We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?

 

[Skylar]

With the preamble that the States are stand ins for the people of the United States. Article 7 merely defines terms of ratification.

The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.

'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

 

[Centinel]

The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.

'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

 

[Centinel]

The states were the sovereign political bodies that established the constitution between themselves.

'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign.

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

 

[Skylar]

'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.

 

[Skylar]

'Were' being the key terms. When they joined in the United States they surrendered much of their sovereignty to a federal government. A government that has extensive powers over each state....including jurisdiction over every last inch of the State's territory.

Its the same as an individual in the State. When they individual is alone, they are the lone sovereign with no one having any authority over them. When they join in the state, they become subject to the will of the relevant majority within the bounds of individual rights. And the law extends to all of that individual's property as well as himself. If the people of a State find that murder is illegal.....and the individual murders someone on his property, the laws still apply.

The individual has sacrificed sovereignty to the State. The State to the Federal government. As in both cases the central authority solves the Hobbesian trap, providing a third party with no interest in conflicts to help prevent them between parties.

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign.

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[Centinel]

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.

Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.

 

[Centinel]

So we are in agreement that the states established the constitution between themselves.

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign.

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.

So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.

 

[Skylar]

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.

Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.

 

[Skylar]

As the agents of the people, sure. Just like the people established the States between themselves. Each sacrificing some personal sovereignty in doing so.

That's why the Constitution begins 'We the People of the United States'. As they are ultimately who is creating the US through their agents the States.

Not individually. But collectively. And 'We the People' is the unit by which the nation is created. Or destroyed for that matter.

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign.

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.

So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.

The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution above the law of any state.

Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.

It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.

Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.

 

[Centinel]

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.

Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.

To the founders, Pennsylvania was in the same class as France or Spain. Each was a state, and the constitution was established between such states/nations.

 

[Centinel]

Of course, a sovereign state is the agent of the people of that state. And the constitution was established between these sovereign states.

States that *were* sovereign.

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.

So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.

The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution above the law of any state.

Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.

It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.

Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.

The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.

When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.

 

[Skylar]

States that *were* sovereign. People that *were* sovereign. The people sacrificed their unique and individual sovereignty when becoming a state. A states sacrificed their unique and invididual sovereignty when becoming the United States.

And the unit by which they did this was 'We the People of the United States'. Which in practical terms was described in Article 7: a relevant majority of states. With a relevant majority being 3/4s.

That relevant majority is the sovereign now. And its agent is the Federal government.

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.

Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.

Perhaps you'll find me where in the constitution the explicit language is that recognizes a State as a nation.

'Explicit language' was your standard, yes?

 

[Skylar]

States that *were* sovereign.

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.

So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.

The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution above the law of any state.

Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.

It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.

Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.

The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.

The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.

When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.

Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.

So show us where this explicit language is.

 

[Centinel]

Yes, article seven makes is clear that the constitution was established between the sovereign states. The states are the principals and they created the federal government as their agent.

Article 7 establishes the threshold of ratification. The preamble makes it clear who is establishing the constitution. We the People of the United States. The States are merely the people's agents.

Article 7 states that the constitution was established between states. It was an international agreement.

Show me anywhere in the constitution it recognizes a State as a 'nation'.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between a state and a nation. They appear to by synonyms to the founders.

Perhaps you'll find me where in the constitution the explicit language is that recognizes a State as a nation.

'Explicit language' was your standard, yes?

You don't seem to understand what the founders understood a state to be.

Perhaps this will help. Treaty of Paris:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."

The constitution was an interstate compact, i.e. a treaty between states.

 

[dblack]

I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.

Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.

The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.

Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.

The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.

Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.

We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?

I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.

 

[Publius1787]

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

It's a preamble, it means nothing and grants no power to anyone. United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co

 

[Centinel]

Were?

Can you cite any treaty or document that indicates that they are no longer so?

The Supremacy clause of the United States which places the US constitution above any law. And the Preamble which establishes the unit by which the United States was created: We the People.

We've had this discussion, Cent. Your argument degenerated into Sovereign Citizen bullshit, with individual people supposedly able to secede their front yard from the United States.

Which, of course, they can't.

And I had James Madison, father of the Constitution, explicitly contradicting you point for point. Putting both the founders , 240 years of history, and the Supreme Court on my side. And your opinion on the other.

Our sources are not equal.

So you can't cite any language in the constitution that indicates the the states have relinquished their sovereignty. I assumed as much.

The Supremacy clause...which places the US constitution above the law of any state.

Ignore the Supremacy Clause as you wish. Ignore James Madison as you wish. Ignore the Supreme Court as you wish. Ignore 240 years of history as you wish. Imagine whatever silly Sovereign Citizen nonsense you wish.

It really doesn't matter. Again, we've had this discussion. You lost the moment you started babbling about how any person can 'secede their house' from the United States.

Um, no. They can't. Nor have they ever been able to. You've quite literally imagined it.

The supremacy clause doesn't say that the parties to the constitution relinquish their sovereignty.

The Supremecy clause demonstrates that the Constitution is above 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't think 'sovereignty' means what you think it means.

When a state enters into a treaty, it isn't giving up its sovereignty.

Show us the explicit language of the Constitution that says that the constitution is a 'treaty'? Remember, the Constitutoin most definitely uses the term 'treaties'....but not in relation to the States and itself.

So show us where this explicit language is.

It's a simple matter of definitions. A treaty is an agreement between sovereign, independent states. That's what a treaty is.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know that you and I have ever discussed this issue before. So you may be thinking of someone else.

Hmmm.. maybe. Anyway, I'm referring to the way our conception of rights, and the government's role in protecting them has changed.

The conversation is kind of evolving. A lot.

Our conceptions of rights have totally changed. Initially, rights were simple: freedom from federal government action. That worked for a while, but the States violated rights flagrantly. And there's nothing that could be done about it. The 14th amendment was created to fix that problem....and that worked for a while.

The 14th fundamentally changed the federal government's relationships with rights. Instead of being the body against which rights were a limiting factor, rights became something that the federal government helped defend by limiting the action of others. The federal government's role was transformed to something similar between the people and the State as it has taken between a state and a state.

Well, that trend continued, with the federal government eventually taking on the same role between people and people. And 'civil rights' as we know them today came into being. With States having taken on the role of defender of rights between people and people long before that.

We've already had the 'libertarian' discussion at least half a dozen times. I know your position on people v. people interactions. You know mine. What's left to discuss?

I always feel like there's always something else to discuss, I wouldn't post otherwise.

Then explain what there is to discuss that hasn't been covered.