Paragraph 1: I have not fabricated any position for you, and your post does not even assert how I have. I questioned an explicit claim about the legality of secession, and it is perfectly proper to expect that kind of thesis to deal with actual legal matters. I have not attributed such a posiution to you at all. In fact, I have noted the absence of such reasoning in my reference to your folksy logic, but what am I doing trying to guess what your claim is. When you make one I will be happy to answer it.
Paragraph # 2. The relevant quote was: "I didn't argue there was, but rather there is no legal DOCTRINE whatsoever that prohibits (emphasis added)" Now you claim you meant document, and that I am picking on typoes. That is pretty rediculous. If you meant document, then so be it, but don't accuse me of playing games because you skipped a groove for a moment. I can only respond to what you actually type, and what you typed was "doctrine."
Paragraph 3: You have shifted the goal-posts. I was responding to another poster who claimed quite explicitly that the secession was legal, and after I chalenged that view you entered with your own distraction device. You now hold me to an affirmative position on the subject while disclaiming one of your own. I can accept that I have a burden of proof here, but your pretention that you have none yourself is a rather opportunistic gambit. In any event, governments do not produce extra rules saying that people or entities cannot reject their legal systems. They write their rules, and assert their jurisdiction. Exceptions to that jurisduiction are themselves necessarily explicit rather than implied. The Constitution contains a clear assertion of authority over states and that alone is sufficient to establish the illegality of secession. Were there an express exemption it would be another matter, but your own emphasis on the lack of a specific clause addressing specific claims made half a century after the Constitution was written is smoke and mirrors. The Constitution doesn't specifically say that you can pray in a Catholic Church either, but that doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't entail that right.
Paragraph 4: When people refer to actiojns by states, they are referring to government entities, not merely the citizenry thereof. You said that states approved the Constitution and thus that they had the authority (as government entities) to sexcede (WHICH WAS DONE BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT). In other words, you clearly attributed an action to state governments. If you can explain to me how a state government acts on such matters without a legislative resolution, then I will grant that my inference was invalid. But this would merely mean that you were equivocating when you justified a state action (as a government) by referring to a state action (by the people in the state). Just because the people in a state vote on something does not mean the state itself is involved, and that is the only point at which your claim becomes relevant.
And do not lecture me about reading your posts or attributing positions to you that you have not taken. If you cannot think more clearly about the words that you are using, then this is not my responsibility.
Paragraph 5: The proof you want is a red herring. And if you are going to ignore the arguments which I have made on that topic, then I suppose you can certainly pretend I haven't proven anything, and avoid dealing with the case on the table. It's a childish game, but so be it.
Last paragraph: I should think the point would be obvious. Oh well.
Paragraph # 2. The relevant quote was: "I didn't argue there was, but rather there is no legal DOCTRINE whatsoever that prohibits (emphasis added)" Now you claim you meant document, and that I am picking on typoes. That is pretty rediculous. If you meant document, then so be it, but don't accuse me of playing games because you skipped a groove for a moment. I can only respond to what you actually type, and what you typed was "doctrine."
Paragraph 3: You have shifted the goal-posts. I was responding to another poster who claimed quite explicitly that the secession was legal, and after I chalenged that view you entered with your own distraction device. You now hold me to an affirmative position on the subject while disclaiming one of your own. I can accept that I have a burden of proof here, but your pretention that you have none yourself is a rather opportunistic gambit. In any event, governments do not produce extra rules saying that people or entities cannot reject their legal systems. They write their rules, and assert their jurisdiction. Exceptions to that jurisduiction are themselves necessarily explicit rather than implied. The Constitution contains a clear assertion of authority over states and that alone is sufficient to establish the illegality of secession. Were there an express exemption it would be another matter, but your own emphasis on the lack of a specific clause addressing specific claims made half a century after the Constitution was written is smoke and mirrors. The Constitution doesn't specifically say that you can pray in a Catholic Church either, but that doesn't mean the First Amendment doesn't entail that right.
Paragraph 4: When people refer to actiojns by states, they are referring to government entities, not merely the citizenry thereof. You said that states approved the Constitution and thus that they had the authority (as government entities) to sexcede (WHICH WAS DONE BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT). In other words, you clearly attributed an action to state governments. If you can explain to me how a state government acts on such matters without a legislative resolution, then I will grant that my inference was invalid. But this would merely mean that you were equivocating when you justified a state action (as a government) by referring to a state action (by the people in the state). Just because the people in a state vote on something does not mean the state itself is involved, and that is the only point at which your claim becomes relevant.
And do not lecture me about reading your posts or attributing positions to you that you have not taken. If you cannot think more clearly about the words that you are using, then this is not my responsibility.
Paragraph 5: The proof you want is a red herring. And if you are going to ignore the arguments which I have made on that topic, then I suppose you can certainly pretend I haven't proven anything, and avoid dealing with the case on the table. It's a childish game, but so be it.
Last paragraph: I should think the point would be obvious. Oh well.
Upvote
0
