Quite possibly. It would be nice if I could hear one and see.
So by your reasoning, the USA and the fifty states and the people throughout that terriroty are completely subordinate to first peoples of the First Nations.
She is the premier expert on American law.
About this - we have an entire forum dedicated to board related matters, including questions about rules, how we interpret them, etc. That forum is About This Message Board. Any questions about rules, moderation, etc. are appropriate in that forum and the staff will do their best to answer any questions you may have or clarify ambiguity that may be present. Feel free to pose questions in that forum if you want clarity around any board rule.
In this forum however, Great Debates, I would expect that any assertion of fact may be challenged, and poorly supported arguments called out. It’s the raison d’être of the forum. No one here is responsible to make your arguments for you and if you are unable or unwilling to do so on your own, it’s likely to not be persuasive.
I’m going to give this another try. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion. Readers can judge for themselves what constitutes a legal argument, much less a persuasive one.
[/moderating]
Well I never did that, regardless of whether you agree or not.
Unfortunately you would have to learn to differentiate a legal argument from a tu quoque argument., which is the heart of our language barrier here.
I, for one, would love to hear more about the customs of a board you joined less than 48 hours ago.
Can’t argue with that line of reasoning.
Only that long? I guess it only seems like 5 years.
No, there were admitted into the Union by the United States government, and recognized by the existing prior States-- just like the initial States were first recognized in turn by Britain, France, and other nations existing before the original states.
If you care to read the Declaration of Independence, it clearly asserts that National sovereignty derives from the people of the nation-state in question, by virtue of the natural rights endowed equally to them by their Supreme creator-- not by title to real estate.
You would do well to learn this underlying philosophy, if you want to understand the logic by which it operates.
So each state is a Sovereign Nation unto itself, regardless of when it was recognized and admitted into the Union, supremely owned and ruled by its respective people. Otherwise, it would simply be a territory of the United States, which is held in common by the individual states.
The initial states operated under the Articles of Confederacy, which was a significantly different compact than the US Constitution that followed several years later. It might have made sense for the other nations to recognize the individual states in 1783, but the nature of the relationship among those states changed when they adopted the US Constitution. The AofC was discarded because it was not practical for the states to function as part of a confederation. Hence, they United as a coherent nation.
I have read the Declaration of Independence. I used to have a nice parchment copy given to me by my dad’s insurance agent. It says,
You might do well to learn that the Declaration of Independence was composed twelve years before the Constitution, when the states were organized under the AofC, and has absolutely no force of law. It was a letter to the King, written in TJ’s floweriest language that expressed how passing aggrieved the Americans had become. It does not “operate”.
This is not at all accurate. Consider the territory that TJ bought from Bonaparte’s France, which was purchased with funds from the US treasury. This real estate was eventually organized into a number of states. The states acquired their statehood from the US Congress. They were little more than just some land before being recognized as member states.
If an individual state were to unilaterally secede from the US, what would its status be? How would the global community recognize it? Your argument that the War of Northern Aggression was unjustified lacks footing. The war was over slavery, exacerbated by economic decline in the South. Those states made absolutely no effort at orderly, negotiated secession. Once they tried to seize land owned by the US government, without just compensation, they lost any right to call the war “illegal”.
The Constitution doesn’t expressly say that. You do.
Wow, it’s great that your daddy’s friends are so nice. Say bye-bye!
Revisionism over slavery in the USA is truly vile, for it denies admitting resposibility for generations of hatred and horror.
You, the self-appointed premier expert on American law, have claimed false authority in your efforts to promote revisionism.
Dumb as posts, the South was.
:dubious:
Those “other nations” to which you refer, recognized - at least in Europe since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia - as sovereign nations by each other, did not predominantly hew to your conception of their sovereignty deriving from “the people of the nation-state in question”. As a matter of fact, those European states included theocracies and vast, feudal estates held as the personal property of a family dynasty. Indeed, the whole point of the Westphalian peace was to establish and respect the rights of other nations as having exclusive authority within their respective domains; these domains were - in fact - defined by the “title to real estate” to which you refer above in dismissive fashion. The same year that those traitorous, slave-holding scum declared war upon the USA was the year that Imperial Russia finally deigned to liberate its millions of serfs from the bondage of feudalism.
And that is the issue here, you have not, and here indicate that you cannot, provide arguments in defense of your positions.
What do you mean those traitorous, slave-holding scum declared war on the USA? [del]Jesus Christ[/del] SarahWitch said it was a Northern invasion and had nothing to do with slavery. And, well, she’s the premier expert on American law.:rolleyes:
Perhaps so.
But her American *History *on the other hand is very flaky. Provably, citably flakey.
Cites are for amateurs and reality is for slavish sheep who can’t handle the TRUTH.
All you need to do is assert self-designated preeminent authority, make unfounded claims and dismissively hand-wave away all challenges to the contrary. Victoria ad absurdum!