The Fair Vote

You can't debate using your own big-boy words?

You can't copy and paste? Really?

You haven't proven that the constitution contains any language prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.

Saying you have doesn't really mean you have.

 

you remain refuted. refusing to read the quoted language I've cited a hundred times doesn't make it go away. Sorry.

Here it is again for you to ignore..........................http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-fair-vote.564549/page-50#post-1071260856

 

I've read it, Skippy. It doesn't cite any language in the constitution prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.

 

it specifically cites the language prohibiting a state from seceding. So you either haven't read it, or trolling.

 

I have indeed read it. Many times. I am quite familiar. It cites no language from the constitution prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the constitution. What constitutional prohibition are you claiming that it quotes?

 

then you are fully aware of the specific language the court cites from the constitution, precluding secession.

then back to you either didn't read it, or you are trolling. I've proven it's there. I've linked you directly to the portion of the ruling, where it is.

 

The court cites no constitutional clause prohibiting any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union.

 

well, I've thoroughly disproven that claim. I've cited, specifically, where the court cited the constitutional language precluding secession.

 

So what constitutional clause do they cite?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-fair-vote.564549/page-50#post-1071260856

 

That language contains no prohibition on any of the states leaving the union. Are you sure you are quoting the right clause?

 

Proven false

 

Not really. The language you cited obviously allows states to leave the union.

 

yea really.

Not according to the language I cited. Which precludes a state from doing so.

 

The language you cited totally allows any state to secede.

 

Not according to the language cited, as the court pointed out.

 

The clause you cited absolutely allows any of the sovereign states to secede. Can't you read what you yourself cited?

 

Not according to the language cited, as the courts pointed out.

 

You're wrong. The clause you cited clearly allows secession.

 

Not according to the language cited, as the court pointed out.

 

According to the language you cited, secession is absolutely permitted.

 

Not according to the language cited, as the court pointed out. It’s why Texas was never not part of the union during the civil war. Sorry.

 

Wrong. The clause you cited explicitly permits states to secede.

 

Not according to the language cited, as the courts pointed out. It’s why Texas was never NOT part of the union during the civil war.

 

I'm not quite sure you're resting your argument on a clause that specifically permits states to secede. But it just means I win.