The fact that an independent nation agrees to treaty conditions is no indication that it is not an independent nation.
And a nation cannot just wantonly break a treaty without the consent of the other parties to the treaty, can it?
Yes, it can. That is the nature of sovereignty.
Nope, a country is bound to a contract it voluntarily agrees to, just like a human being.
Yes, a child in reasoning, argument and pronouncement.
I was not creating strawmen but rather only responding to your own repeated statements,...
,... and then you go and back up the strawmen you claimed I fabricated, by repeatedly showing your support for Progressive statist ideology and the irresistible dictate of the national government.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Your position would lead one to conclude that no country could leave, say, the United Nations without permission.
The UN is a little different, as the federal government under the Constitution is a little firmer (no wars on other states, no separate confederacies, etc). I disagree with the notion that the states were considered independent sovereign entities after the AoC were gotten rid of; the opinion of the Framers indicate that this is not the case.
Look I am not debating with you anymore since you straight up are trying to tell em what I actually think. Plus the repeated lies and BS all that seems to be centered on how you think of me. Dude I really couldnt careless what you think of me so quit telling me.
I dont want you to straighten up or anything like that just stop talking to me.
The UN is a little different, as the federal government under the Constitution is a little firmer (no wars on other states, no separate confederacies, etc). I disagree with the notion that the states were considered independent sovereign entities after the AoC were gotten rid of; the opinion of the Framers indicate that this is not the case.
The opinion of the framers nowhere indicates that the states lost, or gave up, their sovereignty. We never transitioned from being a federal government formed by confederation of the states, to a national government of singular sovereign authority dictating to the states the terms of their membership, and we reject such now.
Nowhere is your unsupported opinion in evidence among the framers, and Madison only argued for that to happen at the Constitutional Convention, via his Virginia Plan, but that Virginia Plan was rejected in its entirety, with no part of it being shared by those Framers, and nothing being utilized in the "Frame".
Actually everything about the Constitution indicates that the States damn well gave up some of their own independence and what you keep calling sovereignty to ratify the document and accept everything in it as part of the official structure of the way government operates in the USA. They signed the contract and accepted the terms. And some of those terms provided powers to the national government which by their very nature limit their own powers.
Well, no, nothing about the Constitution actually indicates anything like that, because the Constitution only constructs the fiction known as the federal government, which was formed by the federation of the states.
This is where the streetcar stopped a week ago. What you do here - as you have done is several threads in the past - is lead off with a statement that is false on its face and then you proceed to support it with more pontificating based on the lie you started with.
This is where your education and ideology betray you. and rather than address my comments directly with factual reference, you instead go ad hominem and make irrelevant comments about me personally. Then you further demonstrate this childishness by claiming that what you don't agree with, and did not disprove in any fashion, constitutes my own "lie".
We already had this discussion.
Have you forgotten?
What "ideology" do I now have that you were previously impotent to identify?
For somebody with the propensity to attack and call names you certainly have the thinnest of skins.
do i really have to sit here and read you too arguing about your personall thoughts of eachother? i disagree with trip but im not calling retarded or a liar, grow up the both of you,
States have no right to cecede from the union seeing as how the majority of buisneses and land in each state is owned by the goverment, and alot of people who live in that state would lose their support from america.
do i really have to sit here and read you too arguing about your personall thoughts of eachother? i disagree with trip but im not calling retarded or a liar, grow up the both of you,
I have repeatedly identified your ideology, as have you.
Then it should be relatively easy for you to do so right here then.
What exactly is my "ideology"?
You've forgotten? well, I must say, I'm not surprised given how the rules and boundaries, (not to mention 'word definitions') are written "on the fly", and there's no bottom, or safety net either, so its like watching the Flying Walendas with no net whatsoever.
"Ouch, there they go again! Clean up in Isle 5!"
The problem is that the American people have been forced to climb the pole to the trapeze, and the federal government is saying "Don't worry, I've got you!" when nothing actually supports that federal government.
Incidentally this discussion is no more about you, personally, than it is about me, personally. I've only commented about the ideology that your posts have repeatedly exhibited, with particular consideration to the fact that your arguments never seem to involve any recognition of any sort of secured individual rights, nor constraints upon government.
At no point in that post of personal pompous pontifications does it identify any "ideology" I subscribe to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?