We Need States

I disagree. I think it's a perfect name for a country formed from the unification of 50 states into a single nation."United States of America", on the other hand, is a pretty worthless name for a country formed from 50 states that refuse to unite.

As it happens, it was exactly Article V I was referring to, and it's clear that you've quoted the article without even reading it.Congress either proposes the amendments or convenes the conventions. You keep asserting this hypothetical third path, where the states can convene on their own and amend the Constitution without the participation of Congress, but that doesn't fucking exist. There's no such procedure for amending the Constitution. It's just something you made up.The Constitution specifies only two procedures to amend the Constitution. You keep asserting that there's a third way but there's no such thing. You keep saying "given by the states" like that means something. Maybe you don't understand what "give" means. It may have been given by the states but having been given, it belongs to the Federal government. The states have no power to take it back unless the Federal government gives it to them.That, after all, was the legal basis behind the Civil War; the states took a look at the expansion of Federal power into the practice of slavery to which they objected, decided that they would take back their bequeath of Federal power - and were surprised to find that they had no legal ability to do so under the US Constitution. Hence, they started a war of treason. What's painfully obvious is that rather than read the material that is plainly before you, you'd rather make this up from whole cloth. It's kind of your thing, Jon. That's why when the two of us talk, nobody thinks you're the one who knows what he's talking about.

Stop lying. Here's what I actually said:

quote:

---

There are only two ways to amend the US Constitution, and they both require the participation and therefore the assent of the Federal government.

---

I don't see the word "willing" in there. You should have checked before you misrepresented me and accused me of shifting goals. Didn't you think I would?And moreover Congress has to organize the Constitutional Convention if that's what the states decide to call. But the Constitution doesn't stipulate when they have to do it, which means that it's subject to the same restrictions and veto points as any other legislation in Congress. I.e. it could be filibustered, tabled, held indefinitely by a single anonymous senator, etc.So, yes, Congress's willing participation is required. There's no way to contract Federal power without the participation of the Federal government, and the states have no power for force Federal participation in anything. People tell me many things. For instance, you told me that I had said "willing participation" when I actually hadn't. I guess the difference between you and me is, I'm not so gullible that I believe anonymous people on the internet when they lie straight to my face. You know, like you just tried to do. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

What I said was what I quoted, from message 45:

quote:

---

Not without amending the US Constitution. There are only two ways to amend the US Constitution, and they both require the participation and therefore the assent of the Federal government. There's no way for the states to unilaterally contract any Federal power except by the willing participation of the Federal government. Even if the states bring suit to do so, that suit won't affect the Federal government until the Supreme Court has ruled - and there's your Federal participation in the process.

---

Your contention that I've shifted the goal posts is a lie. Just a flat-out lie, Jon. Between the two of us, why do you think you could convince anybody that you have a better idea of what I actually said than I do? That you're a liar, Jon? They already know. They've known since our last Jesus thread, last year, because that's what you do when faced with an argument you can't rebut - you either lie and pretend it didn't exist, or lie and pretend that your opponent said something he didn't say. You're the least honest evolutionist at EvC, and that's saying something, because that's a sample set that includes Holmes, aka "Silent H." (Eh, look it up.)

How about I do that, and you enforce the forum guidelines for once?

The control is the group that doesn't receive the experiment. You're eliding a stupendous amount of history in order to make Federalism seem like an orderly process of promoting the results of state experimentation to Federal law. It just doesn't work like that at all. For instance, the emancipation of slavery in America was hardly a process where a couple of states said "hey, what if we didn't have slaves anymore?" and then after a few years, everybody in Congress was like "well, we had wanted to emancipate all slaves, but we weren't sure how it would work out. But it worked great in Maryland and Massachusetts, so let's do it!"As maybe you heard once, there was a little bit more of a fracas about it, a little dust-up we called "the Civil War." In the end, the experiences of the free states contributed literally nothing to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation or the Thirteenth Amendment. Even the few states that had flipped from slave to free hadn't done so by means of a single, sweeping act of emancipation. So how then can the laws of the states have been said to inform Lincoln's acts?

No, I'm maintaining that they can all be dismissed for the same reason, and then giving a supporting example. I guess I could be exhaustive at every step, but having been informed that I don't accept his examples on the basis of not being examples of laws being promoted from the state level to the Federal level by an orderly process, the onus is on Dr. A to show that I'm wrong and they are examples of that. In other words, I'm asking him to be more convincing by expanding his argument to address the weaknesses I perceive in it, weaknessess like those I found in the "emancipation of the slaves" example.I'm not ignoring anything.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

"Once again"? Just a minute ago you were accusing me of ignoring it. Now you're accusing me of having invented it. Is there any wonder everyone thinks you're an idiot? Well, I gave a scenario when I explained how Dr. A's slavery example wasn't convincing. Which "words" am I ignoring? Be specific.

Well, ok, I guess. I never said it was, either. I guess that's something we agree on, then.