[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: FLUSH: ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities Source: [None] URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva ... matic-weapons-in-large-cities/ Published: Nov 12, 2014 Author: Andrew Kirell Post Date: 2014-11-12 12:32:26 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 38092 Comments: 99 Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities. Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform. Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” Watch below, via TheBlaze: Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-22) not displayed.       .       .       . #23. To: nolu chan (#21) "You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights." Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. Sure, there were some exceptions, but 99.9% of the voters were rich, white men, so that's what I used. Not every citizen was allowed to vote. Not even today. "Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America." I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Not all citizens can vote, even today, and back in 1789 they were only the rich white male citizens. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: nolu chan (#22) "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" expressly declared that there was no delegation of authority to the Federal goverment of the right to keep and bear arms already held by the people of America. The second amendment protects the existing right of "the people" (NOT all persons) to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. "The people" were the voters, and in 1792 they were the rich, white, male citizens. "The people of America existed before the Constitution. It was the citizenry." Well, yes, "the people" were citizens. But they also voted, and not all citizens voted back then. They still don't. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: misterwhite (#20) Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read: I'm not being picky. There was no Executive Order, memorandum or proclamation. Just because someone says something does not make it so. This readily fact-checkable information was echoed all around the internet by numerous people, not just by yourself. Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese wrote a memo and INS District Director Perry Rivkind anounced a policy change. It was an action made within the Executive branch but was not issued by President Reagan. Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same." I will assume you have not read the "Reagan" memo/announcement. See this report from 1989 quoting the Meese memorandum. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-01-15/news/8901030372_1_nicaraguan-economy-foreign-policy-sandinistas Analysts Blaming Immigration Wave On Failed Policies January 15, 1989 By DON MELVIN, Staff Writer The Sun Sentinel [...] George Waldroup, deputy director of the Miami INS office, said the statement by INS District Director Perry Rivkind, "was taken out of context back then. What the statement was, was that he would not deport any Nicaraguan until the due process had been finalized under existing statute or regulation. Nicaraguans have been deported by this district. He did say it was against his moral consciousness to do so when you had a government there like it was." In July of 1987, Meese issued a memorandum directing INS to take a series of steps regarding Nicaraguans. "No Nicaraguan who has a well-founded fear of persecution will be deported in the absence of a finding by the Justice Department that the individual has either engaged in serious criminal activity or poses a danger to the national security," the memo read, according to Meissner. "Every qualified Nicaraguan seeking a work authorization will be entitled to one, and all INS officials are directed to encourage and expedite Nicaraguan applications for work authorizations." [snip] http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/19/obamas-unilateral-amnesty-really-will-unprecedented-unconstitutional/ Obama Set to Unilaterally Reshape the Nation’s Immigration System Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….” In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which provided a general amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.” In fact, in 1987, then-Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens. In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. I assume the public at large has yet to read the Obama Executive Order as it has not yet been published to the public. It should be Executive Order 13862. All Executive Orders must be published in the Federal Register at this one, when it is published, should be available at this link. It is hard to say exactly what Obama is planning to do before the Executive Order is published. There have been indications that the unlawful deportable aliens will be given work permits and social security numbers. We already know that Obama lies about what his actions will do. On Obamacare, the bill had to be passed in order to find out what was in it. Then, the promise and forecast claims evaporated. The American people were Grubered. It is exceedingly difficult to see how Obama is planning to patch an unforeseen result of a recently enacted law -- seeing as how the piece of recently enacted law for Obama does not exist. The Senate legislation (S. 744) frequently cited by Obama was unconstitutional on its face. How much of this does Obama seek to enact by executive fiat? We have to wait to see the Executive Order. The Executive can not raise any funding without congressional authorization, and that must start in the House. The Dem immigration bill in the Senate, S. 744, passed 68-32 and died. It was "blue slipped" and never considered in the House. When, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, a Senate-introduced bill that raises revenue or appropriates money is passed by the Senate and sent to the House for its consideration, the House places a blue slip on the legislation that notes the House's constitutional prerogative and immediately returns it to the Senate without taking further action. This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic is historically to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip. It was an unconstitutional bill originated in the Senate and raising revenue. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00744:@@@S S. 744 Latest Title: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 4/16/2013) Cosponsors (7) Related Bills: H.R.5, H.R.490, H.R.1596, H.R.2270, H.R.2624, H.R.3130, H.R.3344, H.R.3431, H.R.3568, H.R.3914, H.R.4460, H.R.4951, H.R.4961, S.223, S.616, S.891, S.1889, S.2561, S.2781 Latest Major Action: 6/27/2013 Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 32. Record Vote Number: 168. Latest Action: 6/27/2013 Senate ordered measure printed as passed. Senate Reports: 113-40 For any who claim that obama can implement what is in this Bill without Congress, or that such actions do not required appropriation of funds, this is an 1198-page bill littered with appropriations. [46] 9 SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM FUNDS. 10 (a) COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM TRUST 11 FUND.— 12 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in 13 the Treasury a separate account, to be known as the 14 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund 15 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Trust Fund’’), 16 consisting of— 17 (A) amounts transferred from the general 18 fund of the Treasury under paragraph (2)(A); 19 and 20 (B) proceeds from the fees described in 21 paragraph (2)(B). 22 (2) DEPOSITS.— 23 (A) INITIAL FUNDING.—On the later of 24 the date of the enactment of this Act or Octo- 25 ber 1, 2013, $46,300,000,000 shall be trans- [47] 1 ferred from the general fund of the Treasury to 2 the Trust Fund. $46 billion here, and $46 billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. And, of course, U.S. Const., Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1, states, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." I suppose that because the House would not act to generate the 1198 pages, the Senate felt legally justified to do it themselves. They could not wait. It was an emergency. No, I'm serious about the emergency. See page 66, 1 (d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.— 2 (1) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR CONGRES- 3 SIONAL ENFORCEMENT.—In the Senate, amounts 4 appropriated by or deposited in the general fund of 5 the Treasury pursuant to this section are designated 6 as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 7 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the 8 concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 9 2010. 10 (2) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR STATUTORY 11 PAYGO.—Amounts appropriated by or deposited in 12 the general fund of the Treasury pursuant to this 13 section are designated as an emergency requirement 14 under section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 15 Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–139; 2 U.S.C. 16 933(g)). Examples of appropriations littered throughout the 1,198 pages of the bill. Under SEC. 1104. ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING BORDER SECURITY OPERATIONS which begins at page 82, one funds at page 86, 4 (4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 5 There is authorized to be appropriated for each of 6 fiscal years 2014 through 2018 such sums as may 7 be necessary to carry out this subsection. Under SEC. 1106. EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY which begins at page 92, we find on page 93, 10 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi- 11 tion to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated, 12 there is authorized to be appropriated to U.S. Customs 13 and Border Protection such sums as may be necessary to 14 carry out subsection (a) during fiscal years 2014 through 15 2018. At pages 505-506 we find Section 2541, we find, CHAPTER 3—FUNDING 18 SEC. 2541. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 19 (a) OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP AND NEW AMERI- 20 CANS.—In addition to any amounts otherwise made avail 21 able to the Office, there are authorized to be appropriated 22 to carry out the functions described in section 451(f)(2) 23 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 24 271(f)(2)), as amended by section 2511(b)— 25 (1) $10,000,000 for the 5-year period ending 26 on September 30, 2018; and 506 1 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 2 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years. 3 (b) GRANT PROGRAMS.—There are authorized to be 4 appropriated to implement the grant programs authorized 5 under sections 2537 and 2538, and to implement the 6 strategy under section 2539— 7 (1) $100,000,000 for the 5-year period ending 8 on September 30, 2018; and 9 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 10 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   14:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: nolu chan (#25) You're off topic. In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   14:52:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: misterwhite (#23) Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Think again. That idea is absolute blithering nonsense. The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. As the following official record shows, about half of the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreign born, aliens, had declared their intention to become citizens but had not yet become citizens. Under Wisconsin law they enjoyed the right to vote and all other privileges of citizens. But they were not citizens of the United States. According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States. http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cache/w/a/r/waro0123/00381.tif100.gif OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: misterwhite (#26) In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:33:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: misterwhite (#24) "The people" were the voters, and in 1792 they were the rich, white, male citizens. The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   15:34:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: nolu chan (#29) "The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing." I didn't ask who were the "people of the United States". I asked you who were "the people". Article I, Section 2 refers to "the people". Who were they? In 1792 they weren't women or children, were they? They weren't slaves or foreigners. Who were they? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   17:06:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: nolu chan (#27) (Edited) "According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States." Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. The bottom line is that "the people" were not all persons or even all citizens. They were a select group who were allowed to vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-24   17:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: All (#29) I didn't ask who were the "people of the United States". I asked you who were "the people". Article I, Section 2 refers to "the people". Who were they? "The people" referred to by the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States were the people (citizens) of the United States, as opposed to the people of some other nation or other definitions derived from sampling Mr. White's blue ice. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   17:33:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: misterwhite (#31) "According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States." Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States? No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States. That's a Federal matter. Of course, one could be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State. If "voters" and "the people," are synonymous, and some States permitted aliens to be voters, alien voters would be among "the people" of the United States. Alternatively, if these voters were not among "the people" of the United States, then "voters" cannot be synonymous with "the people." nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-24   18:15:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: nolu chan (#32) "The people" referred to by the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States were the people (citizens) of the United States" Weren't women citizens? Article I, Section 2 says "the people" vote. Women didn't vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   14:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: nolu chan (#33) "No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States." Correct. "Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States?" That's correct. Wisconsin let those "aliens" vote because they were going to become citizens soon thereafter. So Wisconsin made an exception. But once again, you're citing exceptions to the rule then making some generalization. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   14:36:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: misterwhite (#34) Weren't women citizens? Article I, Section 2 says "the people" vote. Women didn't vote. Your fantasy remains without merit. See Minor v. Happersett SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875 ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus: The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1] "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains: "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote." Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise. In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote. The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error. 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote. [snip] nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   17:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#35) you're citing exceptions You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   17:17:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: nolu chan (#37) "You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States." You're the one citing exceptions, not I. I told you why those aliens were allowed to vote. That one state, one time. I'll ask you one last time. Who were "the people" in Article I, Section 2? In other words, who was allowed to vote in 1792? If you refuse to answer, I'm done with you on this forum. I see no reason to have to ask a question multiple times. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   19:32:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: nolu chan (#37) "Your fantasy remains without merit." Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   19:35:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: misterwhite (#39) Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen? The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously insisted. Deal with it. I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. [...] There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: misterwhite (#38) I'll ask you one last time. Who were "the people" in Article I, Section 2? In other words, who was allowed to vote in 1792? If you refuse to answer, I'm done with you on this forum. I see no reason to have to ask a question multiple times. I have answered you multiple times. You just don't like the answer as supported by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion. C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   19:58:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#40) "I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. "It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution." The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You cited #1, 2, and 3. You left off 4, 5, and 6. Why? Oh, I see why. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such a state women have no right to vote. So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-25   20:26:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: misterwhite (#42) Minor v. Happersett is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. [...] So, according to your own cites, "the people" voted, but women could not vote in 1792 (or 1875). Meaning "the people" did not include women in 1792. Will you concede that fact? No, and please stop being deliberately obtuse. I have no idea why you keep citing 1792. The Constitutional government took effect when George Washington was inaugurated in March 1789 and a new union of eleven states came into being. Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote. That was a power held by the States prior to the Constitution and not delegated to the Federal government. The Federal government has been delegated the authority to stop discrimination on the basis of race or sex, and to require State due process of law. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. [...] The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Still, to this day, the Constitution does not grant any right to vote for delegates to the Electoral College for President. See Bush v. Gore (2000) The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex. See Pennsylvania constitution of 1776: VII. That all elections ought to be free; and that all free men having a sufficient evident common interest with, and attachment to the community, have a right to elect officers, or be elected into office. Massachusetts constitution of 1780: ART. IX. All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments. New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1792 (amending Constitution of 1784) Art. 7. The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled. Art. 11. All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications has equal right to elect and be elected into office. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-25   21:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: nolu chan (#43) "I have no idea why you keep citing 1792." That will become apparent when we get over this issue first. "Minor v. Happersett holds that the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to vote." We agree. Stop bringing it up. "Federal law requires voting law not discriminate on the basis of race or sex." Today. But not back in 1792. Why are you citing all this irrelevant crap? Article I, Section 2 reads that "the people" vote. According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. You still disagree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:32:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: nolu chan (#41) You're defining a citizen. That could be a man, woman, or child. I asked you who were the voters -- "the people" -- in Article I, Section 2. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   9:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#44) According to your own citation, women could not vote in 1792. According to history, women did not vote in 1792. Meaning "the people" did not include women. Complete unsupported nonsense. http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/ American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776)) [...] Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.)) [...] Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111)) 60 U.S. 575-576 The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows: "The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected. On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the Page 60 U. S. 576 privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States. Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship? That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but, in at least five of the States, they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   15:49:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: misterwhite (#45) You're defining a citizen. That could be a man, woman, or child. I asked you who were the voters -- "the people" -- in Article I, Section 2. The premise of your question is nonsense. The voters are not "the people." The voters are whomever the state government decides them to be. That can be any subset of "the people" and may and has even included aliens, citizens of foreign nations. Federal law prohibits discriminating against certain subsets of the people to inhibit such right of suffrage which the State may choose to grant to others. The people are the C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. The original citizens "were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain." 88 U.S. 166. Articles of Confederation, Article IV The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.... 60 US 575 On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged.... nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   16:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: nolu chan (#46) In one state. And not all women. And there were prerequisites. If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:31:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: nolu chan (#47) "The voters are whomever the state government decides them to be." Correct. And those are "the people". "The people are the C-I-T-I-Z-E- N-S." "The people" were citizens with full rights. Only "the people" could vote. Not all citizens could vote. Are you claiming that they could? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   16:39:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: misterwhite (#48) If women had the right to vote, as you say, then why did we need the 19th amendment? For possible penetration of what I actually said: 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.... The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that no right of suffrage is conferred by being a citizen of the United States, per the Constitution of the United States. Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey. The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 13th Amendment was needed to prohibit slavery which was not forbidden by the original Constitution. The 15th Amendment was needed to prohibit race discrimination which was not prohibited by the original Constitution. The 26th Amendment holds, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." Minors under the age of 18 years are citizens. Those from 18 to 21 were citizens before the 26th Amendment. All of those citizens were of the people of the United States. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:25:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: misterwhite (#49) "The people" were citizens with full rights. Only "the people" could vote. Not all citizens could vote. Your nonsense is based a a false premise. Not all citizens had all the rights held by others. 88 US 178 Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one The people of the nation were not defined by all the differing State laws. The right to vote was not a Constitutional right. The Constitution did not confer that right to anyone. The people of the nation were its C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S. 88 US 162, 166 (1875) Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain My source is the U.S. Supreme Court. Yours appears to be some wingnut website you are too ashamed to cite. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   17:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#49) Ok they gave women the right to vote with the 19th amendment. Or maybe they already had it. But let me add this. The constitution refers to who is elibible to be President. It only says "he". It never says she. So technically a woman isn't eligible to run for President. There is no amendment changing that. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-26   17:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: A K A Stone (#52) Ok they gave women the right to vote with the 19th amendment. Or maybe they already had it. No, they did not give women the right to vote with the 19th Amendment. The prohibited the States from prohibiting voting based upon sex. For example, nobody has the right to vote for Presidential electors unless the State decides to grant such right. From Bush v Gore: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. The right to vote is determined by State law. The Federal law prohibits certain forms of discrimination in the applicable State laws. The constitution refers to who is elibible to be President. It only says "he". It never says she. So technically a woman isn't eligible to run for President. There is no amendment changing that. Common English usage provides that the masculine pronoun is used when a group includes both sexes. There is no question that women are eligible to run for President. A woman has already run for President, been officially on the ballot of several states, and received votes. The Constitution set the requirements for who could run and did not prohibit women. It requires one to be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident in the U.S. Belva Ann Lockwood was officially on ballots in 1884, decades before the 19th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belva_Ann_Lockwood Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (October 24, 1830 – May 19, 1917) was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author. She was active in working for women's rights. The press of her day referred to her as a "suffragist," someone who believed in women's suffrage or voting rights. Lockwood overcame many social and personal obstacles related to gender restrictions. After college, she became a teacher and principal, working to equalize pay for women in education.[1] She supported the movement for world peace, and was a proponent of temperance. Lockwood graduated from law school in Washington, D.C. and became one of the first female lawyers in the United States. In 1879, she successfully petitioned Congress to be allowed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first woman attorney given this privilege. Lockwood ran for president in 1884 and 1888 on the ticket of the National Equal Rights Party and was the first woman to appear on official ballots.[2] http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/98-Lockwood In 1884 she accepted the nomination of the National Equal Rights Party and ran for president. Although suffrage leaders opposed her candidacy, Lockwood saw it as an entering wedge for women. She polled over 4,000 votes and ran again in 1888. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated for President by the National Equal Rights Party in 1884 and gained ballot access in 6 States and received 4,149 recorded votes. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: nolu chan (#50) "Women voted for over thirty years in New Jersey." Some did. "The 19th Amendment was needed to prohibit sex discrimination which was not forbidden by the original Constitution." The 19th protected the right of women to vote. Prior to that, they couldn't vote in all the states. Are you saying women could vote in all the states in 1792? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:29:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: nolu chan (#51) "Not all citizens had all the rights held by others." I'm only discussing one right now -- the right to vote. Could women vote in all the states in 1792? Why won't you answer this very simple question? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-26   18:31:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: misterwhite (#54) The 19th protected the right of women to vote. More nonsense. Neither women, nor men, had a right to vote. Our rights are not granted to us by State governments. The 19th Amendment does not protect a right. It prohibits the States from discriminating on the basis of sex in laws passed that determine who is a qualified voter. The State government can equally deny men and women the "right" to vote in a presidential election. They can choose to have the legislature select the delegates to the Electoral College. Alternatively, the State legislature could appoint the Statehouse janitor to select the delegates. The State Legislature has plenary authority for that election. What law they pass cannot say the men can vote but not women or that Whites can vote but not Blacks. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   18:59:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: misterwhite (#55) I'm only discussing one right now -- the right to vote. Could women vote in all the states in 1792? Why won't you answer this very simple question? Not all women and not all men qualified for the elective franchise in 1792 or now, or at any time in between. Neither women, nor men, had a right to vote. Our rights are not granted to us by State governments. nolu chan  posted on  2014-11-26   19:00:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: nolu chan (#57) Let me throw a wrench in here. The Declaration of Independence gives you the right to vote. Because it is based on natural law. It says you can't be taxes without representation. Everyone is taxed. So you have a natural right to vote. Indirectly. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-26   19:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: nolu chan (#56) "Our rights are not granted to us by State governments." Correct. But they are protected by state governments. Which was what I said. And, prior to the 19th amendment, the right to vote was not protected for women. Meaning that those who voted in 1792 -- "the people" -- did not include women in all the states. Do you agree? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:20:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: A K A Stone (#58) "It says you can't be taxes without representation. Everyone is taxed." Each state decided who could vote, and it varied from state to state. Those voters (whoever they were) were called "the people". They were citizens with full rights, and they were the ones who were invested in the community and had the most to lose. They were freeholders -- older, white, male citizens with land. If there was a tax, they were the ones who paid it. There were some exceptions, but women and children did not own land or run for office. Voting issues didn't affect them, so there was no reaon for them to vote. misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: nolu chan (#57) "Not all women and not all men qualified for the elective franchise in 1792 or now, or at any time in between." On that we agree. Do we also agree that those who could vote were "the people" referenced in Article I, Section 2? misterwhite  posted on  2014-11-27   10:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: A K A Stone (#58) Let me throw a wrench in here. The Declaration of Independence gives you the right to vote. Because it is based on natural law. It says you can't be taxes without representation. Everyone is taxed. So you have a natural right to vote. Indirectly. The DOI did not give any rights to anybody. The DOI is a political declaration of the causes impelling a colonial secession of thirteen colonies from Great Britain. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; For imposing taxes on us without our consent; For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury; For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses; For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies; For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. [Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President] [snip - additional signatures] Source: Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. Government Printing Office, 1927. House Document No. 398. Selected, Arranged and Indexed by Charles C. Tansill Clearly, by the Articles of Confederation, the states continued to be free, sovereign and independent. They expressly entered into a league of friendship. As does the DOI, the Paris Peace Treaty refers to the United States in the plural, on their part, and refers to the individual states in the plural as free sovereign states and that the King treats with them as such. The free sovereign states were addressed individually, by name. For whatever reason, it seems Delaware was not individually listed in this agreement. The State political communities became recognized as free, sovereign, and independent states, plural. They organized with the people of each state being the sovereign of that state. The sovereign, by definition, is not subject to any higher power. IMHO only, any talk of divided sovereignty is political blasphemy. We are supposed to have divided powers, according to what the people chose to delegate to the Federal and State governments. The people delegated certain powers to the Federal government by the Article of Confederation. With ratification by nine states (11 by the time a government was seated), a new union was formed between the 11 states so ratifying. The Constitution delegated more power to the Federal government than had the Articles. In no case did the people delegate their sovereignty, or any part thereof, to anyone. The people of the several states delegated certain powers to their state governments. What they did not delegate, they retained to themselves. As the sovereigns, the people (the political communities organized and referred to as States) held all rights and powers not delegated. The powers of the Government are derived from the people. The rights of the people are not derived from the Government. The people are sovereign, the Government is not. Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781 To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State. [snip] The Paris Peace Treaty The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783 The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles. Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. [snip] D. HARTLEY (SEAL) JOHN ADAMS (SEAL) B. FRANKLIN (SEAL) JOHN JAY (SEAL) Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818 Washington : Government Printing Office, 1931. Over the centuries, the Constitution and the American political organization has been reinterpreted into something where the people have delegated part of their sovereignty to the Federal government, and part of their sovereignty to the State governments, each of whom is sovereign within their separate spheres of "sovereignty." Being a little bit sovereign compares to being a little bit pregnant. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-02   1:16:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: misterwhite (#59) Meaning that those who voted in 1792 -- "the people" -- did not include women in all the states. Do you agree? No. This remains unmitigated crap. The people of the United States are its citizens. The Court stated in Huber v. Reily, "Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away." Individual states decide meets, or fails to meet, the qualifications to be a voter in each state. Individual states do not decide who meets, or fails to meet, the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States. If you are a natural born citizen, you are one of the people of the United States. If you are naturalized, you are one of the people of the United States. By the Constitution, the people delegated to the Federal government the power to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. It is a uniform rule, not fifty different rules, which determines naturalization. U.S. Supreme Court Wesberry V. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, 27 based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [376 U.S. 1, 13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 28 It provided on the one hand that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States" and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch the people, ought to be represented; in the other, the States." 29 The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 376 U.S. 17-18, Opinion of the Court It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. 376 U.S. 1, 25-26 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) In any event, the very sentence of Art. I, 2, on which the Court exclusively relies confers the right to vote for Representatives only on those whom the State has found qualified to vote for members of "the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Supra, p. 22. So far as Article I is concerned, it is within the State's power to confer that right only on persons of wealth or of a particular sex or, if the State chose, living in specified areas of the State. 7 Were Georgia to find the residents of the [376 U.S. 1, 26] Fifth District unqualified to vote for Representatives to the State House of Representatives, they could not vote for Representatives to Congress, according to the express words of Art. I, 2. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? The truth is that it does not. 376 U.S. 27 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) Representatives were to be apportioned among the States on the basis of free population plus three-fifths of the slave population. Since no slave voted, the inclusion of three-fifths of their number in the basis of apportionment gave the favored States representation far in excess of their voting population. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, Opinion of the Court We hold that, construed in its historical context, the command of Art. I, 2, that Representatives be chosen "by the People of the several States" 9 means that as [376 U.S. 1, 8] nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's. 10 This rule is followed automatically, of course, when Representatives are chosen as a group on a statewide basis, as was a widespread practice in the first 50 years of our Nation's history. 11 376 U.S. 8-9, Opinion of the Court We do not believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended to permit the same vote-diluting discrimination to be accomplished through the device of districts containing widely varied numbers of inhabitants. To say that a vote is worth more in one district than in another would not only run counter to our fundamental ideas of democratic government, it would cast aside the principle of a House of Representatives elected "by the People," a principle tenaciously fought for and established at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the Constitution, particularly that part of it relating to the adoption of Art. I, 2, reveals that those who framed the Constitution [376 U.S. 1, 9] meant that, no matter what the mechanics of an election, whether statewide or by districts, it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives. 376 U.S. 12-14, Opinion of the Court The deadlock was finally broken when a majority of the States agreed to what has been called the Great Compromise, 27 based on a proposal which had been repeatedly advanced by Roger [376 U.S. 1, 13] Sherman and other delegates from Connecticut. 28 It provided on the one hand that each State, including little Delaware and Rhode Island, was to have two Senators. As a further guarantee that these Senators would be considered state emissaries, they were to be elected by the state legislatures, Art. I, 3, and it was specially provided in Article V that no State should ever be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate. The other side of the compromise was that, as provided in Art. I, 2, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen "by the People of the several States" and should be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." While those who wanted both houses to represent the people had yielded on the Senate, they had not yielded on the House of Representatives. William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut had summed it up well: "in one branch the people, ought to be represented; in the other, the States." 29 The debates at the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent "people" they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be determined solely by the number of the State's inhabitants. 30 The Constitution embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal for a periodic census to ensure "fair representation of the people," 31 an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that "numbers of inhabitants" [376 U.S. 1, 14] should always be the measure of representation in the House of Representatives. 32 376 U.S. 17-18, Opinion of the Court It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted. United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 ; Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 . Not only can this right to vote not be denied outright, it cannot, consistently with Article I, be destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 , or diluted by stuffing of the ballot box, see United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges [376 U.S. 1, 18] this right. In urging the people to adopt the Constitution, Madison said in No. 57 of The Federalist: "Who are to be the electors of the Federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. . . . " 47 Readers surely could have fairly taken this to mean, "one person, one vote." Cf. Gary v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381. 376 U.S. 1, 25-26 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) In any event, the very sentence of Art. I, 2, on which the Court exclusively relies confers the right to vote for Representatives only on those whom the State has found qualified to vote for members of "the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Supra, p. 22. So far as Article I is concerned, it is within the State's power to confer that right only on persons of wealth or of a particular sex or, if the State chose, living in specified areas of the State. 7 Were Georgia to find the residents of the [376 U.S. 1, 26] Fifth District unqualified to vote for Representatives to the State House of Representatives, they could not vote for Representatives to Congress, according to the express words of Art. I, 2. Other provisions of the Constitution would, of course, be relevant, but, so far as Art. I, 2, is concerned, the disqualification would be within Georgia's power. How can it be, then, that this very same sentence prevents Georgia from apportioning its Representatives as it chooses? The truth is that it does not. 376 U.S. 27 (From dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan) It seems to me that we ought to pause but a moment upon the suggestion, that, in the enforcement of a law such as we have now before us for consideration, intended to secure an election of members of the House of Representatives by the giving of all legal votes and by the giving of none that are frandulent, the Government of the United States has no interest. "The Government of the United States" - what is that? It may be conceded to be an artificial thing, which men call "the Government," and which is sometimes looked upon as the source as well as the exhibition of power, and not capable of interest more than it is of thought or feeling. But, the Government of the United States, in the true sense, is the people of the United States, one and all, throughout the length and breadth of the land. And the people of the United States, here and everywhere, have not only an interest, but an interest that is vital, in the preservation of their institutions and in the preservation of all that is pure~ just and honest in the popular vote, on which, for their safety and security, their institutions and their Government rest. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 57-58. Undoubtedly a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote, and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualification cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens. So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union, foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. United States v Quinn, 2nd Cir, 8 Blatchford 48, 61. Section 2. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." Section 4, subdivision 1. "The times, places, aud manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators." Section 5, subdivision 1. "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." Section 8, last subdivision. "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Does the Act in question infringe the provision of the Constitution which I have read, which provides that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature? It is argued with great ingenuity and ability, that the Act in question infringes that clause of the Constitution, because it seeks to establish a test of qualification -- seeks to affirm the evidence of qualification -- and, by so doing, ex vi termini, imposes qualification itself. We apprehend that that argument rests upon no solid basis. The Act in question neither professes, nor, by any implication, can it, we think, be construed to affect the qualification of any elector anywhere. It imposes no duty to register. It prohibits no registration that is required in the State in which the elector seeks to exercise his franchise. It touches no qualification of the elector in any other respect. It leaves the power of the State to prescribe the qualifications of electors for the most numerous. branch of the State Legislature, in the largest and fullest extent, untouched and unaffected. It says, and only says, that, when the qualification of registration is imposed by the State law, (leaving the expediency or wisdom of such a law entirely to the judgmeut of the State), it shall be an offense against the laws of the United States to contribute, by fraud and violation of the State registry laws, to the seuding of a representative to the Congress of the United States who is not clothed with the authority which a true expression of the popular will would give; and that is all. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) It is not to be doubted, that the power to regulate suffrage in a state, and to determine who shall and who shall not be a voter, belongs exclusively to the state itself; the constitution of the United States confers no authority upon congress, to prescribe the qualifications of electors, within the several states that compose the federal union. Congress is, indeed, empowered to make regulations for the time, place and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or to alter those made by the legislature of a state (except those in relation to the places of choosing senators), but here its power stops; the right of suffrage at a state election, is a state right, a franchise conferrable only by the state, which congress can neither give nor take away. If, therefore, the act now under consideration is, in truth, an attempt to regulate the right of suffrage in the state, or to prescribe the conditions upon which that right may be exercised, it must be held unwarranted by the constitution. In the exercise of its admitted powers, congress may doubtless deprive an individual of the opportunity to enjoy a right that belongs to him as a citizen of a state, even the right of suftrage; but this is a different thing from taking away or impairing the right itself. Under the laws of the federal government, a voter may be sent abroad in the military service of the country, and thus deprived of the privilege of exercising his right; or a voter may be imprisoned for a crime against the United States; but it is a perversion of language, to call this impairing his right of suffrage. Huber v Reilly, 53 Penn. St. Reports 112 (1866) nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-02   1:23:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (64 - 99) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com