• 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!

Commerce Clause discussion

Samwise said:
This prohibition's got to be in there somewhere, right? Why can't they cite it?
Click to expand...
Because Story's opinion is just that an opinion and it is baseless, meaning there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits secession nor is there language that can be interpreted to prohibit secession.
Can't cite what does not exist.
 
prometeus said:
Because Story's opinion is just that an opinion and it is baseless, meaning there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits secession nor is there language that can be interpreted to prohibit secession.
Can't cite what does not exist.
Click to expand...

Of course there isn't. Which was my position from the beginning.
 
Samwise said:
Nope. I read his comments. I just think he’s wrong. There is no language in the constitution that prohibits any state from exiting the union
Click to expand...

You've been unable to show you've read his comments so far. You've yet to state what articles Story refers to.
Why do you think the language, in the articles he quoted, do not prohibit secession? Was the language he quoted not clear enough for your level of legal education ?


Story was a justice on the US Supreme Court (and I know you'll probably say you don't care what he was) and he's joined in his opinion, by every constitutional scholar I know of.
Don't you find it strange that you find your ignorant, untrained opinion to be worth more than all the collective opinions of legally trained, brilliant minds that have studied the Constitution?

You're like a school child trying to school NASA engineers on manned flight to Mars
Who cares what you think ?

Your "rocket ship" doesn't get off the ground !
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
You've been unable to show you've read his comments so far.

Why do you think the language in the article he quoted do not prohibit secession.
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't prohibit secession.
Story was a justice on the US Supreme Court (and I know you'll probably say you don't care what he was) and he's joined in his opinion, by every constitutional scholar I know of.

Don't you find it strange that you find your ignorant, untrained opinion to be worth more than all the collective opinions of legally trained, brilliant minds that have studied the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Did they find the language that prohibits any state from exiting the treaty? I would be very interested to see it cited.
You're like a school child trying to school NASA engineers on manned flight to Mars
Who cares what you think ?

Your "rocket ship" doesn't get off the ground !
Click to expand...
You seem upset. All I've said is that there is no language in the constitution prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from exiting the treaty. Rather than your histrionics, if you wish to refute me, all you need to do is cite the constitutional language you seem to claim exists.
 
Samwise said:
Because it doesn't prohibit secession.
Click to expand...

You've been unable to show you've read his comments so far. You've yet to state what articles Story refers to.
What does the language Story quotes as prohibiting secession say ?

Did they find the language that prohibits any state from exiting the treaty? I would be very interested to see it cited.
Click to expand...

Which itself is an interesting comment and proof you've NOT read Story's comment, you don't know the language he quoted, you don't even know fro which articles he was quoting from

In answer to your question, yes they did, which you would know if you'd read Story - which you haven't. How can you say the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession when you have read Story's comments on why it does ?


I'll repeat my question again:
Don't you find it strange that you find your ignorant, untrained opinion to be worth more than all the collective opinions of legally trained, brilliant minds that have studied the Constitution.


Why is your opinion worth more than the consensus of TRAINED and INFORMED as well as LEGALLY EXPERIENCED scholars and lawyers for over the last 150 years ?
I'll let you in on a secret; your personal opinion on legal matters is worthless
Especially as you're legally ignorant, untrained and with no legal experience at all
Doubly especially so when the weight of EXPERT opinion is against you


You seem upset. All I've said is that there is no language in the constitution prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from exiting the treaty. Rather than your histrionics, if you wish to refute me, all you need to do is cite the constitutional language you seem to claim exists.
Click to expand...


All I've said is that there is, but you won't get off your ass to read it

I'm not going to spoonfeed you, read the link because I don't believe your claim that you have

Tell me the quotes, from the Constitution, that Story and many, many others say prohibits secession and stop lying that you've read them


Right now your claim about the Constitution is just ridiculous
You really are like a child trying to tell NASA engineers how to build a rocket ship to fly to Mars.

You know absolutely NOTHING about the subject.
 
Rich2018 said:
You've been unable to show you've read his comments so far. You've yet to state what articles Story refers to.
What does the language Story quotes as prohibiting secession say ?



Which itself is an interesting comment and proof you've NOT read Story's comment, you don't know the language he quoted, you don't even know fro which articles he was quoting from

In answer to your question, yes they did, which you would know if you'd read Story - which you haven't. How can you say the Constitution doesn't prohibit secession when you have read Story's comments on why it does ?


I'll repeat my question again:
Don't you find it strange that you find your ignorant, untrained opinion to be worth more than all the collective opinions of legally trained, brilliant minds that have studied the Constitution.


Why is your opinion worth more than the consensus of TRAINED and INFORMED as well as LEGALLY EXPERIENCED scholars and lawyers for over the last 150 years ?
I'll let you in on a secret; your personal opinion on legal matters is worthless
Especially as you're legally ignorant, untrained and with no legal experience at all
Doubly especially so when the weight of EXPERT opinion is against you





All I've said is that there is, but you won't get off your ass to read it

I'm not going to spoonfeed you, read the link because I don't believe your claim that you have

Tell me the quotes, from the Constitution, that Story and many, many others say prohibits secession and stop lying that you've read them


Right now your claim about the Constitution is just ridiculous
You really are like a child trying to tell NASA engineers how to build a rocket ship to fly to Mars.

You know absolutely NOTHING about the subject.
Click to expand...

Um, my assertion has nothing to do with Story. My assertion is that the constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the states from exiting the treaty.
 
Samwise said:
Um, my assertion has nothing to do with Story. My assertion is that the constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the states from exiting the treaty.
Click to expand...

And how do you know that when you don't read ?
When you have no legal training in general or training in the Constitution in particular
When you have no legal experience
When all expert opinion on the subject says there is (just that you hold on to some ignorant opinion that there isn't)


Start by reading Story's comments

Post the articles he quotes from and the specific language he says prohibit secession.

Stop lying that you've even read any works on the subject
Once again your personal opinion is WORTHLESS.
 
Rich2018 said:
And how do you know that when you don't read ?
When you have no legal training in general or training in the Constitution in particular
When you have no legal experience
When all expert opinion on the subject says there is (just that you hold on to some ignorant opinion that there isn't)


Start by reading Story's comments

Post the articles he quotes from and the specific language he says prohibit secession.

Stop lying that you've even read any works on the subject
Once again your personal opinion is WORTHLESS.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure why this has become the "let's quiz Samwise about stuff we want him to read" hour.

All I have said is that the constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union. If you feel up to the challenge of showing me the language, please feel free.
 
Samwise said:
I'm not quite sure why this has become the "let's quiz Samwise about stuff we want him to read" hour.
Click to expand...

Because you've made two false claims

One that there is no language in the Constitution prohibiting secession, when you've been given sources saying that there is

Two, that you've read the comments on the most well known of those sources, justice Joseph Story when you haven't.
The proof of which is that you can't even quote the article that Story (and others) refer to, much less the language that he quotes


Proving you don't know what you're talking about


All I have said is that the constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union. If you feel up to the challenge of showing me the language, please feel free.
Click to expand...


And that's wrong
What's more I've given you a link to the comments by story which quotes the EXACT language, in the Constitution, that prohibits secession, which you lied about having read.
I keep asking you the language that story quotes, as your refusal to answer is consummate proof that you've lied.

And furthermore your assertion is contrary to all the constitutional scholars over the past 150 YEARS or so.


So you quote the same language Story quotes and tell me why you think it doesn't prohibit secession and EVERY expert on the subject knows less than you.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because you've made two false claims

One that there is no language in the Constitution prohibiting secession, when you've been given sources saying that there is
Click to expand...
Really?? Can you cite it please?
Two, that you've read the comments on the most well known of those sources, justice Joseph Story when you haven't.
The proof of which is that you can't even quote the article that Story (and others) refer to, much less the language that he quotes


Proving you don't know what you're talking about





And that's wrong
What's more I've given you a link to the comments by story which quotes the EXACT language, in the Constitution, that prohibits secession, which you lied about having read.
I keep asking you the language that story quotes, as your refusal to answer is consummate proof that you've lied.

And furthermore your assertion is contrary to all the constitutional scholars over the past 150 YEARS or so.


So you quote the same language story quotes and tell me why you think it doesn't prohibit secession and EVERY expert on the subject knows less than you.
Click to expand...

Here's why I don't think it prohibits secession. Because there is no prohibition against secession. That's why.
 
Samwise said:
Really?? Can you cite it please?
Click to expand...

I already did

And you'd know it if you'd read Story's comments which you lied that you had

Admit it, you've not read anything on how the Constitution prohibits secession


Here's why I don't think it prohibits secession. Because there is no prohibition against secession. That's why.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning - you're just repeating your personal opinion with no substantive evidence


Prove that the language doesn't prohibit secession and quit lying that you've read Story's comments

Hell, just cite the language Story quotes
Then say there is no prohibition against secession - because Story shows there is - which you'd know if you did any reading at all.
 
Rich2018 said:
I already did
Click to expand...
Hm...I don't know about that. Article, section, and clause please.
And you'd know it if you'd read Story's comments which you lied that you had

Admit it, you've not read anything on how the Constitution prohibits secession




Circular reasoning - you're just repeating your personal opinion with no substantive evidence


Prove that the language doesn't prohibit secession and quit lying that you've read Story's comments

Hell, just cite the language Story quotes
Then say there is no prohibition against secession - because Story shows there is - which you'd know if you did any reading at all.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about Story. What's with you and Story. I'm saying that the Constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.
 
Samwise said:
Hm...I don't know about that. Article, section, and clause please.

I said nothing about Story. What's with you and Story. I'm saying that the Constitution contains no language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.
Click to expand...

Which is another lie, you said you'd read his comments.
You ask why I keep mentioning him, I already told you, that his comments are the most well known on the subject.

Why don't you admit you haven't read his comments at all and you lied that you had?

Indeed, why don't you admit to just expressing not fact but your personal opinion - against every other informed, educated and experienced opinion over the past 150 years ?

Your opinion is worthless



The Constitution does contain "language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union."

You just refuse to read it, then lie when you say you have.


What specific language did Story quote when stating the Constitution prohibits secession ?
You don't know but are willing to look foolish by making blanket statements you are utterly unqualified to make.
 
Rich2018 said:
Which is another lie, you said you'd read his comments.
You ask why I keep mentioning him, I already told you, that his comments are the most well known on the subject.

Why don't you admit you haven't read his comments at all and you lied that you had?

Indeed, why don't you admit to just expressing not fact but your personal opinion - against every other informed, educated and experienced opinion over the past 150 years ?

Your opinion is worthless



The Constitution does contain "language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union."

You just refuse to read it, then lie when you say you have.


What specific language did Story quote when stating the Constitution prohibits secession ?
You don't know but are willing to look foolish by making blanket statements you are utterly unqualified to make.
Click to expand...

Article, section, and clause.
 
Samwise said:
Article, section, and clause.
Click to expand...


But you said you'd read former justice Joseph Story's comments - so surely you know the clauses he referenced and the exact llanguage he quoted ?


Admit it, you lied when you said you'd read his comments.


You haven't read anything about the prohibition of secession in the Constitution

But just for you the articles and exact language are here:

Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative



This time actually read it and don't lie that you have.

Give the language Story quotes and say why (in your legally ignorant, uninformed, uneducated and inexperienced mind) you think it doesn't prohibit secession.
 
Rich2018 said:
But you said you'd read former justice Joseph Story's comments - so surely you know the clauses he referenced and the exact llanguage he quoted ?


Admit it, you lied when you said you'd read his comments.


You haven't read anything about the prohibition of secession in the Constitution

But just for you the articles and exact language are here:

Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative



This time actually read it and don't lie that you have.

Give the language Story quotes and say why (in your legally ignorant, uninformed, uneducated and inexperienced mind) you think it doesn't prohibit secession.
Click to expand...

Article, section, and clause??? C'mon you can do it.
 
Rich2018 said:
But you said you'd read former justice Joseph Story's comments - so surely you know the clauses he referenced and the exact llanguage he quoted ?


Admit it, you lied when you said you'd read his comments.


You haven't read anything about the prohibition of secession in the Constitution

But just for you the articles and exact language are here:

Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative



This time actually read it and don't lie that you have.

Give the language Story quotes and say why (in your legally ignorant, uninformed, uneducated and inexperienced mind) you think it doesn't prohibit secession.
Click to expand...

Oh, and can you stop calling me a liar. I believe that is a violation of forum rules.
 
Rich2018 said:
But you said you'd read former justice Joseph Story's comments - so surely you know the clauses he referenced and the exact llanguage he quoted ?


Admit it, you lied when you said you'd read his comments.


You haven't read anything about the prohibition of secession in the Constitution

But just for you the articles and exact language are here:

Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative



This time actually read it and don't lie that you have.

Give the language Story quotes and say why (in your legally ignorant, uninformed, uneducated and inexperienced mind) you think it doesn't prohibit secession.
Click to expand...

Justice Story was on the Marshall Court, this is what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about the Gibbons v. Ogden case: "limitations of a power furnish a strong argument in favor of the existence of that, then he concludes with this statement: "What would have been the point of the foregoing proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting or limiting the right of secession if under the Constitution the unfettered right of secession did not already exist? Why would Congress have even considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?"

Why under Reconstruction the Northern occupational armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede. By insisting that the former Confederate States surrender their right to secede, the United States government had implicitly admitted that those states originally had the right. How could they surrender a right, unless they had it in the first place?
 
Rich2018 said:
If I'm upset, it is with myself for indulging your fantasies and wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.


Dont take it personally.


You'll get em next time. Lol
 
Terryj said:
Justice Story was on the Marshall Court, this is what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about the Gibbons v. Ogden case: "limitations of a power furnish a strong argument in favor of the existence of that, then he concludes with this statement: "What would have been the point of the foregoing proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting or limiting the right of secession if under the Constitution the unfettered right of secession did not already exist? Why would Congress have even considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?"

Why under Reconstruction the Northern occupational armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede. By insisting that the former Confederate States surrender their right to secede, the United States government had implicitly admitted that those states originally had the right. How could they surrender a right, unless they had it in the first place?
Click to expand...

So why forbid something that didn't exist

That's a fair point.

And if the right to secede DID exist, surely there'd be a detailed process of how such a right can be exercised ?


The posters today - are you reading Samwise - want to see the Constitution specifically denying a right that didn't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom