The States, being the CREATORS of the Union, the Federation, the United States, are Superior to it....
Actually, the Union, the nation called the USA was a creation of the People at every single stage of development, because they were represented by lawmakers of their choosing, and the Constitution itself was ratified by elected representatives of the people, and in some cases directly by the people via a referendum.
The Constitution is supreme, as agreed to by the states and people who created it. Which means that when it prohibits the states from certain actions (coining money, making treaties amongst themselves or foreign states, etc. etc.), that is the law. Same goes when it prohibits the Congress, or the federal government in general, from certain action.
Because although the U.S. Govt approved, the Virginia Legislature has not given its approval....
Except that the lawful VA legislature, the restored government of VA in exile from the capitol of Richmond, as dutifully recognized by the federal government (all 3 branches in agreement), did give its consent.
Also, as far as the semicolon is concerned...
Whether or not the true punctuation mark was a semicolon or comma, the second part of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 was not violated:
"[;] but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State[;]"
Why? Because the new state of WV would not be WITHIN the jurisdiction of another state. It would be a completely separate state. If the text of the law said "no new state shall be formed or erected FROM within the jurisdiction of any other state," then that'd be different. For instance, it would not be constitutional for King County to exist as a state within the State of Washington. But that's not what the text said, and in fact, the federal government had previously allowed this creation of a new state, from land originally part of another state to happen with Maine (MA), Kentucky (VA), and Tennessee (NC).
Both of your arguments fail. And yes, you've attempted both based on two interpretations of the text, whether the semicolon functions as a semicolon or comma. If a semicolon, then the requirement of legislative consent only applies to the situation of the immediately previous clause, of a new state being formed from two existing states, and is inapplicable to the situation over new state formed out of land that previously existed as part of a state. Already covered this. If functioning as a comma, thus requiring legislative approval, that was given by the legitimate restored government of VA.
Now, I contend that the semicolon is and was a semicolon, and intended to function as such. For the reasons already detailed, just like with ME, KY and TN, there was no violation of the Constitution. SCOTUS agreed, multiple times. But by all means, if you want to continue pushing this "WV doEsN't eXiSt" nonsense, whatever floats your boat 👌
Except that, ""the restored government of VA in exile in Richmond"", was NOT in Richmond, was Not a duly elected Govt, was in hiding in Wheeling, it was a RUMP GOVT, unelected, making them a bunch of Seditionists, at best, and LIARS too, At MOST Only two counties should have been admitted as the Entire State of WV, not the gargantuan piece of land that Virginia never approved, and you Claim that you believe the Constitution is Law, and in it, the FIRST ONE to approve the splitting of a State is supposed to be the Elected Valid Govt, but nope, you keep throwing out this BS in Exile BS, which Never Happened, it was just a bunch of asshole FreeMasons claiming the status that they Never Had....
Except that, ""the restored government of VA in exile in Richmond"", was NOT in Richmond,
Please don't misquote. That's not what I said. What I actually said was:
the restored government of VA in exile from the capitol of Richmond
Quite the different meaning when quoted correctly. Dare I suggest that this misquote was intentional...
was NOT in Richmond
The location of the body's meeting does not determine its legitimacy or illegitimacy.
was Not a duly elected Govt
Free and open elections were held. A governor was elected by those choosing to vote in that election. The rebels held their own elections as well, which the US government rightly refused to recognize, and instead lawfully recognized the "restored government" as the legitimate governing body under the Constitution.
was in hiding in Wheeling
Was in exile, forced there following threats of violence by rebels
it was a RUMP GOVT, unelected
Again, free and open elections were held
making them a bunch of Seditionists, at best, and LIARS too
Sure, rebels would certainly levy that charge to distract from their own crimes.
At MOST Only two counties should have been admitted as the Entire State of WV, not the gargantuan piece of land that Virginia never approved,
How can you concede that any should have been admitted if as you argue, it was unconstitutional? Not wise to undermine your own core argument. The restored government of VA did approve all the counties involved in the petition, though there was unsual delay given the extraordinary circumstances resulting from the ongoing rebellion which you delusionally claim didn't exist.
Claim that you believe the Constitution is Law,
Because it is. Are you suggesting it isn't?
and in it, the FIRST ONE to approve the splitting of a State is supposed to be the Elected Valid Govt,
That's not what the text says. And we're not talking about a state "splitting up." That's not any of the cases described by the text of Article in question. This is actually a 10th Amendment issue, as to the right of a state to cede part of its land to the federal government and/or the right of the state to grant permission for counties within it to secede from it to petition from statehood. The Constitution does not forbid a state from such action. It does however, set restrictions on how the federal government can approve new admission of new states, which as I've already detailed several times, none of these prohibitions were violated. Again, because of the semicolon, the case we're dealing with doesn't even technically involve the state government at all, except insofar as its exercising its 10th Amendment right to permit counties to secede from it.
throwing out this BS in Exile BS, which Never Happened, it was just a bunch of asshole FreeMasons claiming the status that they Never Had....
The irony of the delusion expressed in this statement is as staggering as your refusal to admit that you were duped by Lost Causists into supporting a rebellion made in defense of an evil cause. One might wonder if you're really a reincarnation of Jefferson Davis...
Actually, the Union, the nation called the USA was a creation of the People at every single stage of development, because they were represented by lawmakers of their choosing, and the Constitution itself was ratified by elected representatives of the people, and in some cases directly by the people via a referendum.
The Constitution is supreme, as agreed to by the states and people who created it. Which means that when it prohibits the states from certain actions (coining money, making treaties amongst themselves or foreign states, etc. etc.), that is the law. Same goes when it prohibits the Congress, or the federal government in general, from certain action.
Ok, so are you being redundant, or are you trying to be condescending???
The ""States"" are their Peoples, their Citizens.....
So when it Forbids a thing to be Done, then That's It, that's the LAW, right???
Is this part LAW:: ""no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state""
How about this part:: ""nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states""
and this:: ""or parts of states""
No, surely those aren't any type of Valid Law, otherwise West Virginia wouldn't exist....
Because:: ""without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.""
Because although the U.S. Govt approved, the Virginia Legislature has not given its approval....
But I suppose we're just gonna Ignore such things....
Oh, but it's the SEMICOLON that's the problem not the MORON reading the Law....
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Second Amendment comes to mind.....
Except that the lawful VA legislature, the restored government of VA in exile from the capitol of Richmond, as dutifully recognized by the federal government (all 3 branches in agreement), did give its consent.
Also, as far as the semicolon is concerned...
Whether or not the true punctuation mark was a semicolon or comma, the second part of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 was not violated:
"[;] but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State[;]"
Why? Because the new state of WV would not be WITHIN the jurisdiction of another state. It would be a completely separate state. If the text of the law said "no new state shall be formed or erected FROM within the jurisdiction of any other state," then that'd be different. For instance, it would not be constitutional for King County to exist as a state within the State of Washington. But that's not what the text said, and in fact, the federal government had previously allowed this creation of a new state, from land originally part of another state to happen with Maine (MA), Kentucky (VA), and Tennessee (NC).
Both of your arguments fail. And yes, you've attempted both based on two interpretations of the text, whether the semicolon functions as a semicolon or comma. If a semicolon, then the requirement of legislative consent only applies to the situation of the immediately previous clause, of a new state being formed from two existing states, and is inapplicable to the situation over new state formed out of land that previously existed as part of a state. Already covered this. If functioning as a comma, thus requiring legislative approval, that was given by the legitimate restored government of VA.
Now, I contend that the semicolon is and was a semicolon, and intended to function as such. For the reasons already detailed, just like with ME, KY and TN, there was no violation of the Constitution. SCOTUS agreed, multiple times. But by all means, if you want to continue pushing this "WV doEsN't eXiSt" nonsense, whatever floats your boat 👌
Except that, ""the restored government of VA in exile in Richmond"", was NOT in Richmond, was Not a duly elected Govt, was in hiding in Wheeling, it was a RUMP GOVT, unelected, making them a bunch of Seditionists, at best, and LIARS too, At MOST Only two counties should have been admitted as the Entire State of WV, not the gargantuan piece of land that Virginia never approved, and you Claim that you believe the Constitution is Law, and in it, the FIRST ONE to approve the splitting of a State is supposed to be the Elected Valid Govt, but nope, you keep throwing out this BS in Exile BS, which Never Happened, it was just a bunch of asshole FreeMasons claiming the status that they Never Had....
Please don't misquote. That's not what I said. What I actually said was:
Quite the different meaning when quoted correctly. Dare I suggest that this misquote was intentional...
The location of the body's meeting does not determine its legitimacy or illegitimacy.
Free and open elections were held. A governor was elected by those choosing to vote in that election. The rebels held their own elections as well, which the US government rightly refused to recognize, and instead lawfully recognized the "restored government" as the legitimate governing body under the Constitution.
Was in exile, forced there following threats of violence by rebels
Again, free and open elections were held
Sure, rebels would certainly levy that charge to distract from their own crimes.
How can you concede that any should have been admitted if as you argue, it was unconstitutional? Not wise to undermine your own core argument. The restored government of VA did approve all the counties involved in the petition, though there was unsual delay given the extraordinary circumstances resulting from the ongoing rebellion which you delusionally claim didn't exist.
Because it is. Are you suggesting it isn't?
That's not what the text says. And we're not talking about a state "splitting up." That's not any of the cases described by the text of Article in question. This is actually a 10th Amendment issue, as to the right of a state to cede part of its land to the federal government and/or the right of the state to grant permission for counties within it to secede from it to petition from statehood. The Constitution does not forbid a state from such action. It does however, set restrictions on how the federal government can approve new admission of new states, which as I've already detailed several times, none of these prohibitions were violated. Again, because of the semicolon, the case we're dealing with doesn't even technically involve the state government at all, except insofar as its exercising its 10th Amendment right to permit counties to secede from it.
The irony of the delusion expressed in this statement is as staggering as your refusal to admit that you were duped by Lost Causists into supporting a rebellion made in defense of an evil cause. One might wonder if you're really a reincarnation of Jefferson Davis...