• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

[W:481]My Proposal to Change the Electoral College

Rich2018 said:
I already did

1. Cite the arguments Story used to prove the Constitution prohibits secession

2. Who (exactly) would agree with you the secession is allowed under the Constitution as written ?
Click to expand...

Rich, you keep mentioning Justice Story so I'm going to assume you read his works "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", have you ever read any dissenting works authored by Scholars in regards to Stories book, I'll take a guess here and say you haven't. There is a good book that was written by Abel Upshur called "A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government" you might want to pick this book up, it's nice to form an opinion by studying both sides of the argument.
 
Terryj said:
Rich, you keep mentioning Justice Story so I'm going to assume you read his works "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", have you ever read any dissenting works authored by Scholars in regards to Stories book, I'll take a guess here and say you haven't. There is a good book that was written by Abel Upshur called "A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government" you might want to pick this book up, it's nice to form an opinion by studying both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

Thank you for being the very first person on DebatePolitics to mention Abel Upshur.
 
Samwise said:
you really can only falsify my statement by producing the language I claim does not exist. Otherwise my statement stands.
Click to expand...
and as you are fully aware, I have done so, repeatedly. It's in the ruling you refuse to read.
 
rahl said:
and as you are fully aware, I have done so, repeatedly. It's in the ruling you refuse to read.
Click to expand...

which article is it in?

(hint: the constitution contains seven articles.)
 
rahl said:
you could have read the ruling 3 times by now, instead of playing this silly game you like to play. We've been over this in numerous threads in the other political forum.
Click to expand...

What other political forum?
 
Samwise said:
which article is it in?

(hint: the constitution contains seven articles.)
Click to expand...
hint, read the ruling. It's in plain English and cites the specific language you keep pretending I haven't given you.
 
rahl said:
hint, read the ruling. It's in plain English and cites the specific language you keep pretending I haven't given you.
Click to expand...

The ruling cites no language in the constitution that forbids any state from quitting.
 
Samwise said:
You've proven nothing.
Click to expand...
I've proven your claim false.
You've not supplied the language forbidding any state from quitting.
Click to expand...
this is a proven falsehood. if you say I've not supplied it again, you will be reported for trolling. You, I, and everyone else reading knows I've supplied it dozens of times now.
 
rahl said:
I've proven your claim false.

this is a proven falsehood. if you say I've not supplied it again, you will be reported for trolling. You, I, and everyone else reading knows I've supplied it dozens of times now.
Click to expand...

You haven't cited the language from the constitution.
 
Samwise said:
Why do I need to read his comments?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, maybe because you expressed a desire to learn about what language in the Constitution prohibits secession ???



Article? Section? Clause?
Click to expand...

All in Story's comments

Which you'd know about if you'd actually read them....and if you're still claiming you have, then you'll know which articles etc Story refers to, wouldn't you ?


Are you still pretending that there's any constitutional scholar who believes that secession is permitted by the Constitution ?
Last time you said the people who agree with you was "anyone who could read" - well clearly that is BS

What is it now?
Anyone who can reason ?
Anyone who can think ?

I note how your replies are long on BS, but short on names.
 
Terryj said:
Justice Stories arguments in favor of the prohibitions of secession were base on 1) It was the People that ratified the Constitution and not the States and 2) The Union was permanent and “perpetual” because of the AoC.

The problem with this is the AoC's were null and void come the ratification of the Constitution, so seeing how the Constitution doesn't mention and thing as permanent or perpetual, this is where Justice Stories opinion falls apart.
It was the People of each State acting on behalf of each State that ratified the Constitution, it was not "One people" acting in accordance with each other, it was 13 Independent States acting individually that ratified the Constitution, if this was not the case then why did Rhode Island and North Carolina take a year to ratify and were not FORCED into it by the PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Yet Story's comments about the Constitution prohibiting secession are the basis for most if not all subsequent constitutional scholars

Are you aware of and such scholar who has said that secession is allowed under the Constitution as written ?

Secondly, I think it speaks volumes that the Constitution made no provision for secession (like it did for amendments)
The conclusion can only be that it wasn't needed

Why might they think something wasn't needed, it can only be because it couldn't happen, it was impossible....it was not allowed


Rich, you keep mentioning Justice Story so I'm going to assume you read his works "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States", have you ever read any dissenting works authored by Scholars in regards to Stories book, I'll take a guess here and say you haven't. There is a good book that was written by Abel Upshur called "A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government" you might want to pick this book up, it's nice to form an opinion by studying both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...


Are you aware of any exerts from this book - specifically stating that secession is legally permitted under the Constitution as it is written ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Oh I don't know, maybe because you expressed a desire to learn about what language in the Constitution prohibits secession ???





All in Story's comments

Which you'd know about if you'd actually read them....and if you're still claiming you have, then you'll know which articles etc Story refers to, wouldn't you ?


Are you still pretending that there's any constitutional scholar who believes that secession is permitted by the Constitution ?
Last time you said the people who agree with you was "anyone who could read" - well clearly that is BS

What is it now?
Anyone who can reason ?
Anyone who can think ?

I note how your replies are long on BS, but short on names.
Click to expand...

I made the assertion that there is no language in the constitution that forbids any state from quitting. You have yet to produce any such language.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yet Story's comments about the Constitution prohibiting secession are the basis for most if not all subsequent constitutional scholars

Are you aware of and such scholar who has said that secession is allowed under the Constitution as written ?

Secondly, I think it speaks volumes that the Constitution made no provision for secession (like it did for amendments)
The conclusion can only be that it wasn't needed

Why might they think something wasn't needed, it can only be because it couldn't happen, it was impossible....it was not allowed





Are you aware of any exerts from this book - specifically stating that secession is legally permitted under the Constitution as it is written ?
Click to expand...

Rich, I really don't want to sit here and type out excerpts from Upshur's book, instead I'm going to post you a link, no need to read it is audible, I really encourage you to spend the hour, if you have the time, to listen to this presentation: Abel Upshur’s Critique of Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States by Donald Livingston | Abbeville Institute
 
Samwise said:
Asking you to cite language you say exists in the constitution isn't trolling. Sorry.
Click to expand...

it is when I've repeatedly cited the language dozens of times. You are fully aware I've given you the SCOTUS ruling, which cites the specific language you keep pretending doesn't exist. Asking for it again and again is trolling, and you've been reported.
 
Samwise said:
I made the assertion that there is no language in the constitution that forbids any state from quitting. You have yet to produce any such language.
Click to expand...

this is a proven falsehood
 
rahl said:
this is a proven falsehood
Click to expand...

not really, because it's incumbent upon you to produce the language you claim exists. which you haven't. you haven't even said what article it's in.
 
rahl said:
it is when I've repeatedly cited the language dozens of times. You are fully aware I've given you the SCOTUS ruling, which cites the specific language you keep pretending doesn't exist. Asking for it again and again is trolling, and you've been reported.
Click to expand...

then you should be able to post a link to the post in which you cited the constitution. i would be eager to see it, thanks.
 
Samwise said:
I made the assertion that there is no language in the constitution that forbids any state from quitting. You have yet to produce any such language.
Click to expand...

Without reading any sites discussing the language that Story and others cite to back their assertion that the Constitution prohibits secession.


So the questions remain:

What arguments did Story use to justify his assertion that the language on the Constitution prohibits secession ?



Do you accept that your personal (and legally ignorant/educated and inexperienced) opinion is not supported by any constitutional scholars at all ?

(if not what sources to you claim supports your opinion?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom