• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Senate be Eliminated

Rich2018 said:
Still haven't learned how to search ?
Click to expand...

I searched the whole document. No language that says a state may not leave.

I think you're making it up, and you know you are, which is why you assiduously resist even trying to cite the article, section, and clause you keep claiming exists.
 
Glitch said:
You might want to check with history. The last time the States decided on their own to leave the Union it didn't work out so well for them. The traitors were ultimately defeated and the States were never allowed to leave the Union. You clearly haven't learned anything from that historical example.
Click to expand...

He refuses to check facts

He refuses to research

He is like a pantomime villain repeating to same nonsense that does nothing but expose his lack of knowledge on the Constitution.
 
Rich2018 said:
He refuses to check facts

He refuses to research

He is like a pantomime villain repeating to same nonsense that does nothing but expose his lack of knowledge on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You still can't come up with the language you say exists?
 
Glitch said:
You might want to check with history. The last time the States decided on their own to leave the Union it didn't work out so well for them. The traitors were ultimately defeated and the States were never allowed to leave the Union. You clearly haven't learned anything from that historical example.
Click to expand...

Is the only difference between those "traitors" and Washington's army, is that they lost ?
 
Rich2018 said:
And settled
Click to expand...
Far from it.
Case closed
Click to expand...
Hardly, as there is no case.

Academics and scholars love to publish new papers...not ONE constitutional scholar has even raised this question AFAIK.
Click to expand...
That does not mean anything, but a current lack of interest.

I bet you think America is so apple-pie like it doesn't do dirty things like destabilize governments and torture people for information.
Click to expand...
Nothing could be further from reality. I am more aware than you can imagine.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
Far from it.... as there is no case.
Click to expand...

Story's response to the secession question is generally regarded as definitive and settling the question.

If your aware of a contrasting POV since, please post it and don't make unsupported, contrary statements


That does not mean anything, but a current lack of interest.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It means the question is closed
End of debate


Again if you disagree, argue in goof faith and post your evidence, citing credible sources and their interpretation.

So far you've engaged in a pointless pantomime act of "oh no it isn't..."


It would seem that a mindless rejection is the sum total of your "argument"


Nothing could be further from reality. I am more aware than you can imagine.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
prometeus said:
By you.
Click to expand...

Yes

Oh and by pretty much every constutionasl scholar ever since - as demonstrated by the other references I gave.
You can find many more that agree with him.

You can't find any that disagree with him.

Except legally ignorant guys off the internet....with zero legal training and zero legal experience. You can find a lot of those.


Not for thinking people.
Click to expand...


You mean the legally ignorant guys off the internet....with zero legal training and zero legal experience ?

But by all mean give me an example or two, you might have a different criteria for "thinking people"


(and be sure to list their qualifications to interpret the Constitution).
 
prometeus said:
No, I was not thinking about you. Quite the contrary I genuinely hoped for a frank discussion, but I guess it was just not meant to be.
Click to expand...

Why not, am I not a legally ignorant guy off the internet - the difference is that I quote sources.

The art of debating is to list sources that back a certain position. No-one gives a damn about what you think...unless you're a Supreme Court justice or some other constitutional scholar.


You cannot. Your position is bereft of support and you only have your opinion.

Legally ignorant as it is.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why not, am I not a legally ignorant guy off the internet - the difference is that I quote sources.
Click to expand...
Yet you couldn't quote the language that Story, according to you, says that is in the Constitution, prohibiting secession. So yes, and you just proved it again.
 
prometeus said:
Yet you couldn't quote the language that Story, according to you, says that is in the Constitution, prohibiting secession. So yes, and you just proved it again.
Click to expand...

Proved what ?

Here's the article. Read it - the language and the arguments are in it.


Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative


If you know of a source that suggests otherwise, post it. Or just say who it is.
But you don't, you just have your opinion, and that's worthless in a debate.
 
Rich2018 said:
Proved what ?

Here's the article. Read it - the language and the arguments are in it.


Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative


If you know of a source that suggests otherwise, post it. Or just say who it is.
But you don't, you just have your opinion, and that's worthless in a debate.
Click to expand...

Rich, as I stated before, there are many holes in Justice Story's opinion. If the Constitution was binding on all States, why was it that North Carolina took a year to ratify the Constitution and during that time North Carolina remained an independent sovereign nation/state, the other states did not coerce North Carolina to ratify the Constitution.

As far as Justice Story's idea of a one peoples nation, well, Madison had a different perspective on that: James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. “We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole… .”

Scalia’s positions is even more confusing, his “Pledge of Allegiance” analogy is the most absurd argument of the bunch. This was written by Francis Bellamy, and the current pledge was not adopted until the 1950's. How can you bind a cession movement that happened in 1860 to a pledge that was written in 1892. All 3 of the Justice's opinions have huge gaping holes in them, the justices of the Supreme Court are not infallible.

Rich, did you read the entire article?????
 
Terryj said:
Rich, as I stated before, there are many holes in Justice Story's opinion. If the Constitution was binding on all States, why was it that North Carolina took a year to ratify the Constitution and during that time North Carolina remained an independent sovereign nation/state, the other states did not coerce North Carolina to ratify the Constitution.

As far as Justice Story's idea of a one peoples nation, well, Madison had a different perspective on that: James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. “We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole… .”

Scalia’s positions is even more confusing, his “Pledge of Allegiance” analogy is the most absurd argument of the bunch. This was written by Francis Bellamy, and the current pledge was not adopted until the 1950's. How can you bind a cession movement that happened in 1860 to a pledge that was written in 1892. All 3 of the Justice's opinions have huge gaping holes in them, the justices of the Supreme Court are not infallible.

Rich, did you read the entire article?????
Click to expand...

Yes,

It concludes that the union cannot be dissolved
QED: states cannot unilaterally secede

If you know of a source determining a contrary view, please post it.

So far we've just had some guy off the internet stating that the Constitution must say specifically a state cannot secede. That is far too simple.

If you want to discuss whether a state can secede, reference acknowledged writings on it, not your personal opinion.
 
Rich2018 said:
Proved what ?
Click to expand...
That Story argued that the language of the Constitution prohibited secession. There is no such language in the Constitution and that is why you can not quote the language you pretend to exist.
 
prometeus said:
That Story argued that the language of the Constitution prohibited secession. There is no such language in the Constitution and that is why you can not quote the language you pretend to exist.
Click to expand...

No, it is his interpretation of the language used in the Constitution that led him to believe that the union was indissoluble.

If you are looking for the Constitution to spell it out that a state can't secede, you'd be disappointed

If you therefore believed that a state can unilaterally secede, you be wrong according to all constitutional scholars - Joseph Story amongst them.

If you dismiss learned opinion in favor of your own on this subject, you're not only wrong, but you're a fool.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, it is his interpretation of the language used in the Constitution that led him to believe that the union was indissoluble.
Click to expand...
And nowhere can the specific language that he is interpreting, be found. There must be a specific part or parts that Story is interpreting. Absent of that he is not interpreting anything, regardless how impeccable his credentials are.

If you are looking for the Constitution to spell it out that a state can't secede, you'd be disappointed
Click to expand...
I never said that. I am looking for the language that he is interpreting and you have maintained that is in the Constitution. Why can't you point to that?

If you dismiss learned opinion in favor of your own on this subject, you're not only wrong, but you're a fool.
Click to expand...
I have asked several times now for support of the claim that the Constitution prohibits secession. You have yet to offer a shred of evidence. The fool is one who swallows an opinion without the most elementary understanding of it, even if made by a highly respected scholar. It only betrays the lack of the simplest understanding of the issue, the swallowing of a message only because it aligns with your position.
 
prometeus said:
And nowhere can the specific language that he is interpreting, be found.
Click to expand...


In your opinion


There must be a specific part or parts that Story is interpreting. Absent of that he is not interpreting anything, regardless how impeccable his credentials are.
Click to expand...


What is your legal / constitutional or experience ?
If it is, as I suspect, ZERO - then what you say "must be" is in YOUR opinion and an ignorant opinion at that.


I am looking for the language that he is interpreting...
Click to expand...

Did you even read Story's comments about secession ?
If so, which of the do you disagree with and why ? I'm willing to bet you've never read them, let alone understand them


I have asked several times now for support of the claim that the Constitution prohibits secession....
Click to expand...

And I have given it to you multiple times. Here you are again:

Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative


Read it this time, and say which of Story's comments you disagree with, and why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom