Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory.
I've already done this.
We've encountered this problem with you in the other thread. When you don't want to see something, you simply refuse to read/comprehend it. In the case of the Global Warming thread, you literally repeated the same question over and over again despite the fact that it had been answered in writing each time.
In this case, I have already explicitly answered that question as has the link that I used had you bothered to read either. I'll repeat myself:
As the Father of the Constitution pointed out, the Lousiana Purchase was done by a treaty. The Constitution explicitly grants the President the right to negotiate the treaty. The treaty then went through the Senate as required by the Constitution. The funding went through the House as required by the Constitution. What exactly do you want?
First off, my basic problem with your style of debating is that you cherry pick sources on the topics you debate on. Your idea of "proving" something is to link to some individual article as if that, in itself proves your point. A thing may be true 95% of the time but you think if you can find an example of the 5% it undoes the remaining 5%. You then conclude your argument with some sort of smear of those you disagree by calling them or their views "extreme" or "bizarre" as if your pronouncement, on its own, has some scholarly weight to it. You're not a scholar. Your pronouncements mean nothing other than demonstrating an unearned arrogance to other participants.
I only have time to respond to so much - I'm not writing my PhD thesis, so I'm not going to grind out each and every subpoint.
Also, since I have good reason to believe that a lot of my stuff isn't being read (see above), I'm not terribly inclined to go through every single subpoint since it will just get TLDR'd.
Finally, YOU are the one who started this thread with the express purpose of lecturing others about the Constitution. So if you want to claim that I'm being arrogant about it, fine, but you are being TREMENDOUSLY hypocritical if you say that since you started the thread with the express purpose of lecturing to others on it.
Rather than endless appeals to authority, you could, for example, argue what constitutional power gave the federal government of the early 19th century the power to purchase territory. That might be an interesting debate. Instead, your role on these threads seems to be to try to shut down discussion by appealing to what you consider an authority and trying to marginalize those who disagree with you through name-calling. If you're not interested in discussing the topic, then find another topic.
The idea that scholarly biographies on the subjects are somehow disproven because you gave a goddam Wikipedia link is insulting. You're welcome to disagree with my conclusions but to make such definitive statements based on such a weak assertion is obnoxious.
Sigh, we are back to this again.
Listen, I don't like to call people out on fallacies on the internet again since it makes people upset. But I guess I'm going to defend myself here again.
The fact that I happen to cite sources for my arguments is not an appeal to authority. If you honestly think that citing sources for factual statements is an appeal to authority, you are simply clueless. Simply asserting facts is not good enough - they need a source. I tend to be careful in establishing my facts, and therefore will provide evidence that such facts exist. Hence, I provide links. This is considered good practice in any reasonable field. If you disagree, you are simply being silly.
On the other hand, "I read some unnamed biographies on some founding fathers, therefore what I say is authoritative" IS an appeal to authority. It is not citing sources BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NAME ANY SOURCES. I didn't call you on it because it isn't polite to play that game on the internet, but you are starting this process, so I'll defend myself this time.
Anyway, I've cited my sources. My links have repeated links to scholarly sources if you actually bothered to read them (which you probably didn't). On the other hand, you have cited exactly 0 scholarly biographies on the subject to back up your arguments ("some unnames ones that I read this one time" doesn't count as a citation).
As I've pretty clearly shown, if you'd like to play the citation game, I'm more than happy to go there. I love citations. I use them all the time. Go read how many links/citations I've provided to my sources in this thread. Compare this to EVERYBODY ELSE COMBINED.
In any case, I have repeatedly been willing to establish my position with careful and repeated citations. You have not - you have simply asserted your position and vaguely insisted that others back you up. Then you accuse me of having weak assertions? Listen, I'm not claiming to have a PhD thesis here, but its a heck of a lot more than you've done.
So anyway, if you want to play the citation game, lets play the citation game. If you don't want to play it, fine. Its the internet, and I get that most people don't play that game on the internet. But if you don't want to play the citation game on the internet, don't complain that I cite my sources and you don't. That's just odd.