Yes, by forfeit. If you had a contrary opinion then it’s assumed you would have given it when you had the chance.
That would be some trick; for no one nation-state existed at the time, for such a singular “People” to speak as the sovereign rulers thereof. No, the Peoples of each state were each speaking for themselves respectively, as the rulers of a *separate *nation-state.
Nor did they join via the Constitution to become such a singular People or nation-state-- let alone throw away their democratic sovereignty to subject themselves to the final whims of a singular oligarchy; for the Constitution doesn’t expressly say that, and no *indirect *language can be made to stick *against *a sovereign nation-state.
Sorry, you’re stuck Tiger.
If the South had won the War for Slavery, “true Democracy would have been restored to the world”? Is this where you’re hoisting your petard?
Remind me via PM, after she has afore-said petard in place.
Reported and blocked. I don’t mind responding to honest dissent, but personal insults and defamation I will not tolerate.
Actually, Brainglutton was banned quite a while ago. Arguing with him is kind of silly, since he cannot respond. A bit like masturbation.
As I recall, he was (is?) also a lawyer of some sort, so I would tend to give his writings more weight than verses copied out of the SovCit scripturebook.
Do not indicate publicly who is on your ignore list outside of the Pit. I recommend you read the rules of this forum and of the board in general (stickied at the top of the forum and at the top of ATMB forum, respectivley) so as to not continue running afoul of the rules.
[/moderating]
Well, the *premiere expert on American law *should never be subjected to such disrespect. Make them all shut up, show them your credentials.
Good to know, unlike the prior bit.