Is there any part of the Constitution Republicans aren't against?

[Flash]

The States amended the Constitution with those 12 amendments. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Constitution. Only the States can amend the Constitution. Only the States own the Constitution.
I am not stating anything that is different than what is written there. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.

The states ratified 10 of those amendments (eventually 11) only after Congress proposed them.

If states could amend the Constitution alone they would not have needed to make the deal to add those amendments before they would ratify the Constitution because they could have added them at any later date. You are adding powers to the Constitution that do not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

The states ratified 10 of those amendments (eventually 11) only after Congress proposed them.

Correct. Only the States can amend the Constitution. Congress can only propose them.

If states could amend the Constitution

Only the States can amend the Constitution.

alone they would not have needed to make the deal to add those amendments before they would ratify the Constitution because they could have added them at any later date.

They chose to go through Congress in this case. They have several methods, but only States can change the Constitution.

You are adding powers to the Constitution that do not exist.

Nope. The Constitution is owned by the States. They are not agents of the Constitution. They are the owners. They are not limited by the Constitution except for certain agreements the States made between each other, which is also listed in the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Correct. Only the States can amend the Constitution. Congress can only propose them.

Those amendments could not have been ratified by the states if they had not first been proposed by Congress or a convention called by Congress.

The Constitution does not give the states power to amend the Constitution without federal action. "Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention..." It does not say "may" call on Congress or give any alternatives. It is a requirement.

It would serve no purpose to hold a constitutional convention to give greater powers to the central government if the states could change that division of powers.

 

[Into the Night]

Those amendments could not have been ratified by the states if they had not first been proposed by Congress or a convention called by Congress.

Congress and only propose amendments. It does not have authority to change the Constitution. Only the States do.

The Constitution does not give the states power to amend the Constitution without federal action.

The Constitution does not 'give' the States power. They already have it.

"Two-thirds of the state legislatures call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention..." It does not say "may" call on Congress or give any alternatives. It is a requirement.

No, it is not. The Constitution itself was created without a Congress, for it did not yet exist.

It would serve no purpose to hold a constitutional convention to give greater powers to the central government if the states could change that division of powers.

The States can do anything they want during a Constitutional convention. Add powers, take them away, anything.

The States can simply dissolve the federal government completely. They created it, they can destroy it. No Congress necessary. They would be dissolving Congress.

 

[Flash]

Congress and only propose amendments. It does not have authority to change the Constitution. Only the States do.

The Constitution does not 'give' the States power. They already have it.

Not true. The Constitution cannot be amended without joint action by Congress and the states.

The states had a lot of powers that the Constitution specifically prohibit; therefore, the states gave up some of their powers as part of the governing document. There are other sections which grant certain authority to the states--if they already had that power the Constitution would not have needed to give them that power.

 

[gfm7175]

Not true.

ITN is correct. Read the US Constitution. Learn about the history of the founding of the USA.

The Constitution cannot be amended without joint action by Congress and the states.

Sure it can. It can even be replaced. How do you think the Constitution was formed in the first place? Congress is not involved in the amendment process. Only the States can amend the Constitution. All Congress can do is propose amendments for ratification by the States. This has already been described to you. See Article V.

ARF. RAAA. (Argument by Repetition Fallacy. Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed.)

The states had a lot of powers that the Constitution specifically prohibit; therefore, the states gave up some of their powers as part of the governing document.

And those powers are specifically enumerated within the Constitution that the States created. The States did not give up ownership of the Constitution. See Articles I-III, V, VII, Amendment X... hell... just see the US Constitution as a whole.

Again, this has already been pointed out to you. ARF. RAAA.

There are other sections which grant certain authority to the states--if they already had that power the Constitution would not have needed to give them that power.

Authority was not "granted" to the States. The States already HAD (and still have) that authority. They created the damn thing, ya know!

Again, this has been pointed out to you. ARF. RAAA.

 

[Flash]

Sure it can. How do you think the Constitution was formed in the first place? Congress is not involved in the amendment process. Only the States can amend the Constitution. All Congress can do is propose amendments for ratification by the States. This has already been described to you.

ARF. RAAA.

Repeating the same historically and legally inaccurate information does not make it true.

It was described to me--but it went against all facts, history, and constitutional law; especially since you can never point to anything supporting your view. You even ignore the words of the Constitution requiring Congress to call a convention and claim it isn't really required.

 

[gfm7175]

ARF. RAAA.

Nope, this is YOUR issue, not mine. I am giving you the same responses because you keep making the same arguments over and over again (instead of addressing my responses).

Repeating the same historically and legally inaccurate information does not make it true.

Correct, so maybe you should stop doing that. Read the Constitution for a change.

It was described to me--but it went against all facts,

A fact is not a proof nor a universal truth. Learn what a fact is.

history,

YOU are the one denying history here.

and constitutional law;

YOU are the one denying the Constitution here.

especially since you can never point to anything supporting your view.

Lie. I have provided you with specific Articles and Amendments of the US Constitution which support my position. You keep ignoring them. Ignoring them does not make them go away.

You even ignore the words of the Constitution

YOU are the one doing this, not me...

requiring Congress to call a convention

Calling a convention to propose amendments is not amending the Constitution.

and claim it isn't really required.

It isn't. RAAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Not true. The Constitution cannot be amended without joint action by Congress and the states.

Yes it can. I've already shown you the mechanism. They've already done it.

The states had a lot of powers that the Constitution specifically prohibit; therefore, the states gave up some of their powers as part of the governing document. There are other sections which grant certain authority to the states--if they already had that power the Constitution would not have needed to give them that power.

The States did not give up their sovereignty or their ownership of the Constitution. They own it. They created it. They can destroy it.

 

[Flash]

Nope, this is YOUR issue, not mine. I am giving you the same responses because you keep making the same arguments over and over again (instead of addressing my responses).

Your responses leave nothing to address since you just repeat the same inaccurate information again and again.. Your responses are contrary to every historical, legal, and constitutional fact.

The Constitution clearly states Congress must call the convention to propose amendments, but you ignore the words in the document and claim they don't really mean what they say.

You cannot even point to any evidence or sources which support your view while evidence clearly supports every claim I have made. To say incorporation does not exist cannot be addressed by any rational person because a long history of court cases exist to prove it. You don't even believe the words of the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Yes it can. I've already shown you the mechanism. They've already done it.

The States did not give up their sovereignty or their ownership of the Constitution. They own it. They created it. They can destroy it.

What amendment was proposed that did not involve the participation of the federal government?

The purpose of the Constitution was to increase the powers of the central government over that under the Articles which meant the states had to give up some of the powers they possessed.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

 

[Into the Night]

What amendment was proposed that did not involve the participation of the federal government?

The Constitution itself was formed without the federal government (it didn't exist yet). The States (Colonies) created it. The remaining States joined it. They own it. They can dissolve it anytime they wish. No Congress needed. Some States did exactly that and seceded from the Union. They formed their own Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution was to increase the powers of the central government over that under the Articles which meant the states had to give up some of the powers they possessed.

WRONG. The purpose of the Constitution is to FORM a government. A constitution describes that government, how it is organized, and what it's powers and authorities are. It has no other powers or authorities. The federal government is no exception.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Yes. This the States themselves agreed to. The States did, the federal government didn't impose them.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No State has given up their ownership of the Constitution. RDCF.

 

[gfm7175]

Your responses leave nothing to address since you just repeat the same inaccurate information again and again... Your responses are contrary to every historical, legal, and constitutional fact.

IF. (Inversion Fallacy.) ARF. RAAA.

The Constitution clearly states Congress must call the convention to propose amendments, but you ignore the words in the document and claim they don't really mean what they say.

ARF. RAAA.

You cannot even point to any evidence or sources which support your view while evidence clearly supports every claim I have made.

IF. ARF. RAAA.

To say incorporation does not exist cannot be addressed by any rational person because a long history of court cases exist to prove it.

** What incorporation?
** Court cases are not proofs.
** SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution. See Article III.

You don't even believe the words of the Constitution.

IF.

 

[domer76]

IF. (Inversion Fallacy.) ARF. RAAA.


ARF. RAAA.


IF. ARF. RAAA.


** What incorporation?
** Court cases are not proofs.
** SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution. See Article III.


IF.

LSMFT.
SMYCYIF
YAFI

“Inversion Fallacy” Google it. No such thing.

Why do you need socks, Into the Night?

 

[gfm7175]

LSMFT.
SMYCYIF
YAFI

Learn what an acronym is and the purpose of them.

“Inversion Fallacy” Google it. No such thing.

False Authority Fallacy.

Yes there is. Another word for "Inversion Fallacy" is projection.

Why do you need socks, Into the Night?

YALSA.

 

[domer76]

Learn what an acronym is and the purpose of them.


False Authority Fallacy.

Yes there is. Another word for "Inversion Fallacy" is projection.


YALSA.

Use English, stupid fuck.

LSMFT
EMYSYIC
YAFCLF.

No such thing as “Inversion Fallacy”, dumbfuck.

Shows your ignorance, Into the Night.

 

[gfm7175]

Use English,

IF.

stupid fuck.

YALIF.

LSMFT
EMYSYIC
YAFCLF.

ATA. (Addressed This Already.)

No such thing as “Inversion Fallacy”, dumbfuck.

RAAA.

Shows your ignorance, Into the Night.

YALSA.

 

[domer76]

IF.


YALIF.


ATA. (Addressed This Already.)


RAAA.


YALSA.

LSMFT

ARYAFI

YAAFI

ITTBYHCS?

Fucking third grade clown.

 

[gfm7175]

LSMFT

ARYAFI

YAAFI

ITTBYHCS?

ATA.

Fucking third grade clown.

YALIF.

 

[domer76]

ATA.


YALIF.

YAHBAHDSDOO.

Stupid clown.