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

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Restoring the 10th Amendment
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 25, 2015
Author: Sen. Roger F. Wicker
Post Date: 2015-04-25 12:11:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 18618
Comments: 72

http://townhall.com

Restoring the 10th Arrangement

Editor's note: This column was co-authored by Congressman John Culberson (R- Texas).

One of the basic responsibilities of the executive branch is to execute the law faithfully. The Obama Administration, however, has no problem ignoring this duty to create its own rules.

Instead of working with Congress on substantive, collaborative legislation, the president has routinely opted to govern by decree, empowering bureaucrats at the expense of the democratic process. His misguided approach puts partisan politics – not the will of the people – at the forefront of decision-making in Washington.

Our reasons for introducing the “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” stem from serious concerns about the administration’s power grabs. One of the Constitution’s most comprehensive protections is the 10th Amendment, which puts a clear limit on the federal government’s reach. Ratified on December 15, 1791, it states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Despite these constitutional protections, our personal lives and state authority continue to be affected by federal oversteps. Like many individuals and businesses, we are frustrated by Washington’s red tape and sweeping bureaucratic authority. The president’s big-government agenda lacks transparency and accountability, intruding into our households, businesses, schools, and churches in alarming ways.

The 2,700-page health-care law is a prime example of costly government interference, prompting the rise of health-care premiums and cancellations of insurance coverage. The same is true for onerous carbon dioxide rules that hurt U.S. energy independence and ultimately Americans’ wallets.

Many of the president’s executive actions have ended up in the courts because of their overwhelming scope. Earlier this year, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction to block the president’s immigration plan until it can be settled in court. More than two-dozen states, including our home states of Mississippi and Texas, have joined the lawsuit against the administration, claiming that the immigration overhaul is a costly and burdensome violation of states’ rights.

Our Founding Fathers foresaw the danger of unchecked federal power. In the Constitution, they set forth guiding principles to protect limited government in the new republic. The Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th Amendment, was added to allay fears that individual freedoms could be curtailed by federal encroachment.

One wonders what our Founding Fathers would think of Washington today. The onslaught of regulations and executive orders from the Obama administration has chipped away at the 10th Amendment’s division of power, putting more control in bureaucratic hands than that of the people or the states. This executive overreach hardly reflects James Madison’s writings in The Federalist, which noted that the Constitution granted “few and defined” powers to the federal government and left “numerous and indefinite” power to the states.

As elected officials, members of Congress have a responsibility to challenge excessive executive action, upholding the Constitution’s time-tested system of checks and balances. We believe the 10th Amendment is integral to this responsibility and the preservation of limited power.

Our “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would give state government officials special standing in court to dispute regulations and executive orders proposed by a federal agency or the President. In other words, states would have the tools to push back against violations of the 10th Amendment, helping to restore individual liberty and limit the size, power, and cost of the federal government.

For the past six years, the Obama administration has used executive measures to score partisan wins on controversial issues. This tactic denies Americans the right to open and transparent debate, one of the core elements of a functioning democracy. The “Restoring the 10th Amendment Act” would be an important step toward restoring accountability, protecting the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and reining in the federal government.

Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-32) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#33. To: SOSO (#30)

First, --- you tell me the meaning of person in the Constitution.

No, not untill you explain what would be the point of doing so.

Second, I just proved the contention that people meant the States as you claimed more than once is inaccurate.

You may think you proved something, but I doubt it.

Do you not understand what We The People of The United States means, the very first words of the U.S. Constitution? To who were the Founding Fathers referring? Themselves? The States? Explain to me to who the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights accure. The individual States? The people of the respective States? Or to the People of the U.S. collectively, whether a citizen or not?

Sorry, but your multi question demand will not be answered tonite.. Give me a day or so to write the multi-thousand word book length reply.

Third, it must be very tiring going that far you your asses to pull out the nonesense you are trying to peddle.

The only nonsense here is the pointless generalities you've posted so far.

Fourth, the plain simple truth is none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation.

Finally! - A specific opinion about what you think of our constitution and its framers.. Where did you come up with such a bizarre interpretation?

Fifth, at least one of you is a total disingenous idiot in pretending not to know that Executive and Legislative Branches, partically the Executive, starting pushing the limits of their respective authorities under the Constitution virtually from day one of Washington's presidency. It's incredible that all that dolt can do is continue to babble horse crap of not making a point when I have made it crystal clear and will do again below.

I'm holding my breath for 'the point'...

Perhaps both of you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions.

That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested? -- Weird reasoning, and you're right, I can't understand it..

Historically it has been the Executive Office that has pushed the boundardies, but not exclusively. And guess what, when there was no push back voila the power that was claimed de facto became constitutional. That is an indisputable fact of how we got to where we are today, i.e. an ever more poweful and unchecked Imperial Presidency, an ever more powerful and unchecked Federal government, the ever diminishing power of the States, and, ever changing, redefinition of individual rights.

Well, I asked for specifics, and you finally gave them. Now I just have to figure out how to formulate a reasonable response to an unreasonable theory. --- Maybe tomorrow..

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   0:04:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#32)

[SOSO #28] As soon as you give me the Consitution's meaning of the word person. You can keep dancing all night and I will keep challenging to you to answer my question which you now ducked how many times?

A human being from birth to death.

Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   0:35:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: tpaine (#33)

Perhaps both of you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions.

That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested?

Not how its tested but what is tested. Man are you dense.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   0:37:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: buckeroo (#29)

The collective people of the United States did not draft or ratify the Constitution.

Then how do contemporary US politicians truthfully remark that they are performing: "the will of the People?"

Contemporary US politicians do not truthfully remark much at all. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period. They lie. Shocker!

There has never been a national referendum to decide anything. Whether to elect a president or to amend the Constitution, the people act, and can only act, as States.

Only 12 states even participated in the Constitutional Convention. Only 11 states ratified before Washington was inaugurated. Only 10 states participated in the electoral college. There was no popular vote. There were a few more presidential elections with no popular vote.

There is no individual right to vote for president. It is up to the State legislatures to designate how the election is done. The State can change its laws and go back to having the State legislature select the delegates for the Electoral College.

The people of the United States have no power to do anything as one big consolidated political community.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   0:38:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: tpaine (#33)

Sorry, but your multi question demand will not be answered tonite.. Give me a day or so to write the multi-thousand word book length reply.

LMAO. That's very Linconesque of you.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   0:38:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: SOSO (#34)

Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death.

No. It is long past time for you to answer questions.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   0:39:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: SOSO (#35)

-- you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions.

That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested?

Not how its tested but what is tested.

That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested? -- Or by what is tested?

Man are you dense.

Man, are you pedantic.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   0:49:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: SOSO (#37)

Sorry, but your multi question demand will not be answered tonite.. Give me a day or so to write the multi-thousand word book length reply.

LMAO. That's very Linconesque of you.

Your gullibility aside, thanks for the compliment..

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   0:52:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: nolu chan (#38)

Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death.

No. It is long past time for you to answer questions.

Stop playing games. You know quite well that you can't defend your answer as the Constitution does not define person at all. The best we can do is to infer what the FF meant by the term in the context of specific usage, which opens the door wide to interpretation and assumptions. Confounding the issue us that sometimes person is spelled with an upper case p and sometimes a lower case p.

It is long past time for you to answer questions.

Ask away.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   0:56:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: tpaine (#39)

Or by what is tested?

Try to learn something.

"Washington believed he had to act. He and his cabinet members met with Pennsylvania officials. They decided to present evidence of the violence to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson. After reviewing the evidence, Wilson certified that the situation could not be controlled by civil authorities alone. A military response could proceed."

Try to learn some more.

"The Whiskey Rebellion also occupies a distinguished place in American jurisprudence. Serving as the backdrop to the first treason trials in the United States, the Whiskey Rebellion helped delineate the parameters of this constitutional crime. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the United States. During the trials of the two men convicted of treason, Circuit Court Judge william paterson instructed the jury that "levying war" includes armed opposition to the enforcement of a federal law."

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   1:01:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: tpaine (#42)

If you have the stomach, learn some more.

"The first test of the strength of the government founded on the new Constitution was made in Pennsylvania, in 1794, by a rebellion against the payment of the excise tax.". The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of the Consitution and it was done by GW in person.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   1:06:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: SOSO (#42) (Edited)

That's your point? That the real meaning of our constitution is defined by how it's tested? -- Or by what is tested?

Try to learn something. --- "Washington believed he had to act. He and his cabinet members met with Pennsylvania officials. They decided to present evidence of the violence to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson. After reviewing the evidence, Wilson certified that the situation could not be controlled by civil authorities alone. A military response could proceed.

There you go again, pasting up the above link, pretending you've made some sort of point.

Boy, are you dense.

If you have the stomach, learn some more. --- "The first test of the strength of the government founded on the new Constitution was made in Pennsylvania, in 1794, by a rebellion against the payment of the excise tax.". The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of the Consitution and it was done by GW in person

So? What exactly do you imagine you're proving?

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   1:16:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: SOSO, tpaine (#30)

Third, it must be very tiring going that far you your asses to pull out the nonesense you are trying to peddle.

Speaking of which, I suggest you back up fifty paces, sprint forward as fast as you can, do a triple somersault and disappear up your own ass. May the force be with you and thank you for your cooperation.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   16:44:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: SOSO, tpaine (#30)

First, as soon as you tell me the meaning of person in the Constitution.

Already done. #32.

Second, I just proved the contention that people meant the States as you claimed more than once is inaccurate.

Saying you proved something is not the same as proving it. You are proving you can give a reasonable impression of yukon.

States are the political communities of the United States. The people of the United States are the citizens of the states. When Washington was inaugurated, it was eleven political communities known as states.

Do you not understand what We The People of The United States means, the very first words of the U.S. Constitution? To who were the Founding Fathers referring? Themselves? The States?

The Founding Fathers were not addressing anyone. The Constitution was drafted by the Framers in 1787, not the Founders.

They were the citizens of the thirteen states. The thirteen separate political communities were connected together by the Articles of Confederation.

By a "state," I mean a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit to enjoy peaceably what is their own and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person.

U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 455 (1793)

"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation.

U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 463 (1793)

thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution

U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 463 (1793)

There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State.

U.S. Supreme Court, 2 Dal. 473 (1793)

All the people of one state are the state.

U.S. Supreme Court, 9 Wheat. 187 (1824)

As preliminary to the very able discussions of the Constitution which we have heard from the bar, and as having some influence on its construction, reference has been made to the political situation of these States anterior to its formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true.

The States? Explain to me to who the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights accure.

Tom, Dick and Harry. And Jane.

Fourth, the plain simple truth is none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation.

Gee, if nobody knew what anything meant, not even the people who wrote it, how did it create a binding agreement?

Is that the words living constitution that you are trying to channel?

If you somehow adopt a philosophy that the Constitution itself is not static, but rather, it morphs from age to age to say whatever it ought to say — which is probably whatever the people would want it to say — you've eliminated the whole purpose of a constitution. And that's essentially what the 'living constitution' leaves you with

Scalia says.

Fifth, at least one of you is a total disingenous idiot in pretending not to know that Executive and Legislative Branches, partically the Executive, starting pushing the limits of their respective authorities under the Constitution virtually from day one of Washington's presidency. It's incredible that all that dolt can do is continue to babble horse crap of not making a point when I have made it crystal clear and will do again below.

You have made absolutely nothing crystal clear, not even who you are addressing.

Perhaps both of you don't understand that the de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions. Historically it has been the Executive Office that has pushed the boundardies, but not exclusively. And guess what, when there was no push back voila the power that was claimed de facto became constitutional. That is an indisputable fact of how we got to where we are today, i.e. an ever more poweful and unchecked Imperial Presidency, an ever more powerful and unchecked Federal government, the ever diminishing power of the States, and, ever changing, redefinition of individual rights.

You are the one who says "none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation."

It seems the new standard to test whether something is constitutional is to determine if anyone has done something. If they have, it's constitutional. But Obama and Congress passed a law implementing an individual mandate as a penalty and the Court said that was unconstitutional. Indeed, after segregation was constitutional for a long, long time, the Court somehow discovered it wasn't. After about two centuries of banning same-sex marriage, such a ban has recently been discovered to be unconstitutional. I just do not understand why the de facto standard failed.

Apparently, they were all just stumbling around clueless, waiting for an enlightened someone such as yourself to come along and explain it all.

And guess what, when there was no push back voila the power that was claimed de facto became constitutional.

In your certain knowledge that everything being done is constitutional, you have nothing left to blather about.

What is the constitutional meaning of the word is?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   16:46:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO (#34)

Please give the specific citint/language in the Constitution that says a person is a human being from birth to death.

90. A number of rules have been adopted, the ob­servance of which will enable the judge to discover the intention of the legislature, and thus decide what the law is. They are principally the following:

1. When the law is clear, it must not be eluded under the pretext of grasping its intention.(c) Words must be used in their usual and most known significa­tion, unless they appear plainly to have been used in another sense;(d) and in the construction of an obscure law, the most natural sense is to be preferred, or that which is the least difficult of execution.(e)

(c) Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211; Bartlet v. Morris, 9 Port. 266.

(d) Merchants' Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. 405.

(e) 1 BL Com. 60.

John Bouvier, Institutes of American Law, Vol. 1, (1854), p. 41.

Person used in its most usual and most known signification means a human being. Persons as used in the Constitution refers to human beings, but does not include the dead, the undead, or the unborn.

If you have a better definition, give it and justify it.

I you believe you can either add to or delete from those I include in the definition, state your case.

The original Law Dictionary adopted by Congress for its use was Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Here is it's 1856 edition definition of person.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   16:48:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: SOSO (#41)

Stop playing games. You know quite well that you can't defend your answer as the Constitution does not define person at all.

You did not ask for the Constitution's definition of person.

[SOSO #28] As soon as you give me the Consitution's meaning of the word person.

You asked for the meaning of the word person as used in the Constitution.

The best we can do is to infer what the FF meant by the term in the context of specific usage, which opens the door wide to interpretation and assumptions.

Mainly, it opens the door to the conclusion that you are clueless as to the difference between the Founding Fathers (FF) and the Framers. The Framers wrote the Constitution.

Confounding the issue us that sometimes person is spelled with an upper case p and sometimes a lower case p.

Some people are more easily confounded than others. You have not offered any meaning other than that which I provided.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   16:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: SOSO (#41)

It is long past time for you to answer questions.

Ask away.

I already did.

#28. To: nolu chan (#25)

The 14th Amendment is not exclusive and is only a partial declaration of who are citizens. Try again.

As soon as you give me the Consitution's meaning of the word person. You can keep dancing all night and I will keep challenging to you to answer my question which you now ducked how many times?

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-26   21:38:42 ET

I'm still waiting for you to figure out your definition of citizen. The 14th Amendment which you blindly cut and pasted does not provide a definition of citizen any more than saying trout and guppies are fishes provides a definition of fishes.

I gave specific examples of citizens that do not fit within what you claim to be a definition of citizen. At #32, "persons born overseas to U.S. parents become natural born U.S. citizens at birth. They are not born in the United States nor are they naturalized."

Try to come up with a better definition that does not leave anyone out.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   17:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: SOSO, tpaine (#1)

SOSO #1: What does the phrase "or to the people" mean?

tpaine #4: Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State.

SOSO #7: It could just as easily mean the people of the U.S..

tpaine #8: The people of the United States are also (obviously) the same 'people of the States'.

SOSO #22: The first words of the U.S. Consitution are "We the People of the United States.... Tell me again about how the collective people of the U.S. never did anything.

"the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution.

"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation.

2 Dal. 468 (1793)

thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution

2 Dal. 470 (1793)

There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State.

2 Dal. 473 (1793)

All the people of one state are the state.

Albert T. Bledsoe, The War Between the States, 1915.

[51]

CHAPTER VII

THE CONSTITUTION “A COMPACT BETWEEN” THE STATES— THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Preamble Quoted. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The first clause of this preamble to the Constitution, wholly detached from its history and from every other portion of the same instrument, as well as from all the contemporary and subsequent expositions of its authors, is made the very corner-stone of the Northern theory of the general government of the United States. That tremendous theory, or scheme of power, has been erected on this naked, isolated, and, as we expect to show, grossly misinterpreted clause.

From the bare words of this clause it is concluded, both by Story and Webster, that the Constitution was established or ratified, not by a federal but by a national act; or, in other terms, that it was not ratified by the States, but by a power superior to the States, that is, by the sovereign will of “the whole people of the United States in the aggregate,” acting as one nation or political community. With Puritanical zeal they stick to “the very words of the Constitution,” while the meaning of the words is unheeded by them, either because it is unknown, or because it does not suit their purpose. But words are not the money, they are merely the counters, of wise men. The meaning of the Constitution is the Constitution.

In arriving at the meaning of these words, of the very clause in question, I shall not do the least violence to any law of language, or to any rule of interpretation. I shall, on the contrary, show that we are not “obliged to depart from the words of the instrument,”1 as Mr. Justice Story alleges, in order to sustain our interpretation of any portion of it. I shall show that the Southern interpretation

__________

1 “Commentaries on the Constitution, book III, chap ii.


[52]

of the clause in question is, in reality, the only fair, legitimate, and reasonable sense of the preamble itself. Nor shall I, for this purpose, repeat the arguments which are usually employed by the friends of the South in this controversy. Those arguments are amply sufficient to refute the interpretation of Story and Webster. But they are so well put by others—by John Taylor, of Caroline; by Judge Upshur, of Virginia; by John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina; and especially by Mr. Spence, of Liverpool, that I need not repeat them here. Every one may find access to them in the admirable work of Mr. Spence.1 Hence, passing by those arguments, I shall, by an appeal to the records of the Convention of 1787, make my position good, and annihilate the great corner-stone of the Northern theory of the Constitution of the United States.

The Preamble Discussed

“We, the people of the United States.” The history of these words is curious and instructive. Only a portion of that history has, as yet, been laid before the public of England or of the United States. In the light of that history the great corner-stone in question will be found to crumble into dust and ashes; and the only wonder will be that considerations so clear and so conclusive should have been so long locked up, as a profound secret, in the records of the very Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States.

It is well known that in the original draft of the Constitution its preamble, instead of saying, “We, the people of the United States,” specified each State by name, as the previous Articles of Confederation had done. If it had remained thus, then the States would have appeared, on the very face of the preamble itself, as the parties to the Constitution. But the preamble, as is well known, was afterwards changed by omitting to mention the States by name. There are, however, some most important facts __________

1 We have only said admirable; but, all things considered, Mr. Spence’s work is truly a wonderful production.


[53]

connected with the change and the origin of the words in question, which seem to be wholly unknown on both sides of the Atlantic. They have, certainly, attracted no notice whatever from any of the writers on the great controversy between the North and the South.

The first of these facts relates to the person by whom, and the manner in which, the change in question was effected; or, the words, “We, the people of the United States,” were substituted for an enumeration of the States by name. During all the great discussions of the Convention, the preamble to the Constitution retained its original form; nor was there, from the beginning to the end of their deliberations, a single whisper of dissatisfaction with it in that form. Every member of the Convention appeared perfectly satisfied that the States should stand, on the very front of the Constitution, as the parties to the compact into which they were about to enter. It was only after the provisions of the Constitution were agreed upon, and its language was referred to “a committee on style,” that the names of the States were silently omitted,” and the clause, “We, the people of the United States,” substituted in their place.

Now, it will not be denied that if this change had not been made by the “committee on style,” then the States would have been the parties to the new Constitution just as they had been, to the old Articles of Confederation. Hence, if the interpretation of Story and Webster be the true one, then it must be admitted that the “committee on style,” appointed merely to express the views of the Convention, really transformed the nature of the Constitution of the United States! Then it must be admitted that the “committee on style,” by a single turn of its pen, changed the course of history and the meaning of its facts; causing the supreme power of the Federal Government to emanate, not from the States, but from the people of America as one political community! Did the “committee on style” do all this? And is it on legislation like this that a sovereign State is to be deemed guilty of treason and rebellion against the sublime authority of the people of America, and visited with the utmost vengeance? The


[54]

sublime authority of the people of America, the one grand nation, erected and established solely by the pen of the “committee on style !”

This clause, “We, the people of the United States,” introduced by the “committee on style,” and passed over in perfect silence by the whole Convention, is the great stronghold, if it has one, of the Northern theory of the Constitution. The argument from these words appears in every speech, book, pamphlet, and discussion by every advocate of the North. It was wielded by Mr. Webster in his great debate with Mr. Calhoun, in 1833, and still more fully in his still more eloquent speech on Foot’s resolutions in 1830. “The Constitution itself,” says he, “in its very front, declares that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States in the aggregate.” The fact is not so. The Constitution neither declares that it was established by the people of the United States in the aggregate, nor by the people of the United States in the segregate. But if we look into the history of the transaction we shall find that it was established by them in the latter character, and not in the former. We shall find that each State acted separately, and for itself alone; and that no one pretended, or imagined, that the whole aggregate vote of any twelve States could bind the thirteenth State, without its own individual consent and ratification. In order to make out his interpretation, Mr. Webster interpolates the legislation of the “committee on style” with words of his own.

How the Preamble Was Changed

The change in the preamble to the Constitution was effected by the pen of Gouverneur Morris, one of the most zealous advocates in the Convention of 1787 for a strong national government. He certainly wished all power to emanate from the people of America, and to have them regarded as one great nation. But did he accomplish his wish? In the Convention, says the record, “Gouverneur Morris moved that the reference of the plan [i. e., of the Convention] be made to one General Convention, chosen


[55]

and authorized by the people to consider, amend, and establish the same.”1 This motion, if adopted, would indeed have caused the Constitution to be ratified by “the people of the United States in the aggregate,” or as one nation.

This would, in fact, have made it a government emanating from the people of America in one General Convention assembled, and not from the States. But how was this motion received by the Convention? Was it approved and passed in the affirmative by that body? It did not even find a second in the Convention of 1787. So says the record,1 and this is a most significant fact. So completely was such a mode of ratification deemed out of the question that it found not the symptom or shadow of support from the authors of the Constitution of the United States.

Now was the very object, which Gouverneur Morris so signally failed to accomplish directly and openly by his motion, indirectly and covertly effected by his style? And if so, did he design to effect such a change in the fundamental law of the United States of America? It is certain that precisely the same effect is given to his words, to his style, as would have resulted from the passage of his motion by the Convention. Did Gouverneur Morris then intend that his words should have such force and effect? In supposing him capable of such a fraud on the Convention of 1787, I certainly do him no injustice, since we have his own confession that he actually perpetrated several such frauds on that assembly of Constitution-makers. “That instrument,” says he, in reference to the Constitution, “was written by the fingers which write this letter. Having rejected redundant terms, I believed it to be as clear as language would permit; excepting, nevertheless, a part of what relates to the judiciary. On that subject conflicting opinions had been maintained with so much professional astuteness that it became necessary to select phrases which, expressing my own notions, would not alarm others, nor shock their self-love; and to the best of my recollection this was the only part which passed without cavil.”2 How adroitly, then, how cunningly, he

__________

1 “The Madison Papers,” p. 1184.
2 “Life and Writings of Gouverneur Morris,” Vol. iii, p. 323.


[56]

cheats the Convention into the unconscious sanction of his “own notions”; and this great legislator of the North even in the purer days of the infant republic, was proud of the fraud!

Nor is this the only instance in which, according to his own confession and boast, Gouverneur Morris tricked the Convention into the adoption of his own private views. “I always thought,” says he, in another letter, “that when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana, it would be proper to govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils. In wording the third section of the fourth article I went as far as circumstances would permit to establish the exclusion. Candor obliges me to add my belief that, had it been more pointedly expressed, a strong opposition would have been made.”1 Thus, as the penman of the “committee on style,” he abused his high position, not only to mould the judiciary system of the United States to suit his “own notions,” but also to determine the fate of two vast empires! Is not such legislation truly wonderful? Instead of weighing every word with the utmost care, and then depositing it in the Constitution as under the solemn sanction of an oath, the Convention trusts the style of the instrument to a fine writer, who cunningly gives expression to his own views in opposition to those of the assembly! “In a play, or a moral,” says Jeremy Bentham, “an improper word is but a word; and the impropriety, whether noted or not, is attended with no consequences. In a body of laws—especially of laws given as Constitutional ones—an improper word would be a national calamity and civil war may be the consequences of it. Out of one foolish word may start a thousand daggers.” How true, and how fearfully has this truth been illustrated by the history of the United States!

But although Gouverneur Morris was capable of such a fraud on the Convention, we have no good reason to believe he intended one by the substitution of the words, “We, the people of the United States,” for the enumeration of all the States by name. He has nowhere confessed to any such thing; and, besides, he did not understand his own words as they are so confidently understood by Story and

__________

1 “Life and Writings of Governeur Morris,” vol iii, p. 193.


[57]

Webster. Every rational inquirer after truth should, it seems to me, be curious to know what sense Gouverneur Morris attached to the words in question, since it was by his pen that they were introduced into the preamble of the Constitution. Nor will such curiosity be diminished, but rather increased, by the fact that he did, in some cases, aim to foist his own private views into the Constitution of his country. How, then, did Gouverneur Morris understand the words, “We, the people of the United States?” Did he infer from these words that the Constitution was not a compact between States, or that it was established by the people of America, and not by the States? I answer this question in the words of Gouverneur Morris himself. “The Constitution,” says he, “was a compact, not between individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power and of course equal rights.”1 Language could not possibly be more explicit. Nor could it be more evident than it is that Gouverneur Morris, the very author of the words in question, entertained precisely the same view of their meaning as that maintained by Mr. Calhoun and his school.

This point was, indeed, made far too clear by the proceedings of the Convention of 1787 for any member of that body to entertain the shadow of a doubt in relation to it. Nor can any one read these proceedings, as they deserve to be read, without agreeing with Gouverneur Morris that the authors of the Constitution designed it to be ratified, as in fact it was, by “the people of the United States,” not as individuals, but as “political societies, each enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights.” Or, in other words, without seeing that “the Constitution was a compact,” not between individuals, “but between political societies,” between sovereign States. This, in the next chapter, I hope and expect to make perfectly clear, by bringing to view the origin of the words, “We, the people,” and by showing the sense in which they were universally understood and used by the member of the Convention of 1787 in the very act of framing the Constitution of the United States.

__________

1 “Life and Writings,” vol iii, p. 193.


[58]

CHAPTER VIII

THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787 A COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATES—THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION

(Continued)

FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE CHANGE IN THE PREAMBLE

The Convention of 1787 did, as we have seen, refnse to call the government a national one, and gave it the name of “the government of the “United States.” Did they then make it a national one by enacting that it should be ordained by “the whole people of the United States in the aggregate” as one political society? Again, when it was proposed in the Convention to ordain the Constitution by “the people of the United States in the aggregate,” in one General Convention assembled, the motion failed, as we have seen, to secure a second. Did Gouverneur Morris, then, the author of that proposal, achieve by his style what he failed to accomplish by his motion? If so, what should we think of the incompetency of the Convention?

Nor was this all. For Madison introduced a motion which required “a concurrence of a majority of both the States and the people”1 at large to establish the Constitution; and this proposition was rejected by the Convention. All these motions, designed to connect the new government with a national origin, were lost, and the decree went forth that the Constitution should be established by the accession of nine States, each acting for itself alone, and to be bound only by its own voluntary act. Now, the question is, was all this action of the Convention overruled and defeated by the committee on style, or rather by its penman, Gouverneur Morris? If he formed such design, then it must be admitted that the Northern theory of the Constitution was conceived in fraud and brought forth in iniquity; and every honest man at the North ought to be ashamed both of its origin and its existence.

__________

1“The Madison Papers,” p. 1470.


[59]

But, as we have already seen, Gouverneur Morris did not understand his own words, “We, the people,” as they are understood by the more modern expounders of the Constitution at the North. Hence we have no reason to believe that he intended, in this case at least, a fraud on the design and will of the Convention. Was the whole thing done then, and the nature of the Constitution transformed, by a slip of the pen, or by accident? After all their opposition both to the name and to the thing, did the Convention, by sheer oversight, blunder into the construction of a purely national government, by permitting it to be established by the people of America as one grand political community? If Mr. Justice Story’s view of the words, “We, the people of the United States,” be correct, how did it happen that the opponents of such a mode of ratification said absolutely nothing? The whole instrument, as amended by the committee on style, was read in the hearing of the Convention, beginning with the preamble, and yet the words, “We, the people of the United States,” now deemed so formidable to the advocates of State sovereignty, did not raise a single whisper of opposition.

How could this have happened if the words in question were supposed to mean the people of America, or the whole people of the United States as one political society? Were Mason, and Martin, and Paterson, and Ellsworth all too dull to perceive that meaning, which is so perfectly obvious to Mr. Justice Story, and which he imagines that nothing but the most purblind obstinacy can resist? Were all the friends of the States, as independent sovereignties, asleep on their posts while Gouverneur Morris thus transformed the nature of the Constitution, without knowing it himself, by causing it to emanate, not from the States, but from the people of America as one nation? No. Not one of these suppositions is the true one. The whole mystery is explained in the proceedings of the Convention of 1787, as exhibited in “The Madison Papers”; an explanation which, however, has hitherto been most unaccountably overlooked. We may there find the real meaning of the words in question, and see why they gave no alarm to the advocates of State sovereignty.


[60]

THE MODE OF RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

If we cast our eyes all along the subject of “the mode of ratification,” ranging from page 735 to page 1632 of “The Madison Papers,” we shall perceive that the question, whether the Constitution should be ratified by the people of “the United States in the aggregate,” or by the several States, was not considered by the Convention at all. No such question was before the Convention. It was neither mooted nor considered by them. The error of Story and Webster is, that they construe the first clause of the Constitution as if it referred to one question; whereas, in fact, it referred to quite another and a far different question—that is, they construed this clause in profound darkness as to the origin of its words, as well as to their use and application in the Convention of 1787. If they had understood them as actually and uniformly used or applied by the framers of the Constitution, then they could neither have deceived themselves nor the people of the North.

If, indeed, they had been members of that Convention, or had only examined its proceedings, they would have seen why the staunch advocates of State sovereignty raised not even the slightest whisper of opposition to the words, “We, the people.” Or, if Patrick Henry had been a member of that assembly, then he could not have exclaimed, as he did, “Why say ‘We, the people,’ and not We, the States?”—an exclamation so often quoted by Story, Webster, and the whole Northern school of politicians as a conclusive authority—for then he would have seen that “We, the people,” in the language of the framers of the Constitution, meant precisely the same thing as “We, the States,” and neither more nor less.

The question before the Convention was, whether the Constitution should be ratified by the legislatures or by the sovereign peoples of the several States. No one doubted that it was to be ratified by the States. This, as we shall see, was on all hands regarded as a settled point. The only question was, whether it “should be ratified by the States, acting through their legislatures, or through


[61]

Conventions elected to represent the people for that special purpose. In the discussion of this question, most of the members insisted that the Constitution should be ratified by the people, by the States in their sovereign capacity, or by their Conventions. These several modes of expression were, in the vocabulary of the Convention, used as convertible terms, as perfectly synonymous with each other. Hence the phrase, “the people of the United States,” as used and understood by them, meant the people of the several States as contradistinguished from their legislatures, and not the people of America as contradistinguished from the distinct and separate sovereign peoples of the different States. This application of the words is the invention of theorists merely. It was unknown to the Convention of 1787, and has had no existence except in the imaginations of those by whom their labors have been systematically misconstrued and perverted from their original design.

Some few members of the Convention were in favor of leaving “the States to choose their own mode of ratification”; but the great majority of them insisted that the Constitution should be referred to the States for ratification, either through their legislatures or through their people in Conventions assembled. It was in regard to these two methods that the Convention was divided. All agreed that it should be done by “the States,” and the only question was as to how “the States” should do it. The idea that it was designed to be done, or that it was done, by the people of America as one nation, is the dream of a later day, and, as we shall see, is nothing but a dream.

Some insisted that it should be ratified by the States in their corporate capacity—this is, by their legislatures; and others that it should be ratified by the States in their sovereign political capacity—that is, by their Conventions assembled for that express purpose. Or, in other words, some contended that it ought to be ratified by their general agents, the legislatures; and others that it ought to be ratified by their special agents, the Conventions elected and assembled to perform that high act of sovereign


[62]

power. In both cases, it was to be ratified by the States, but the opposite parties preferred different modes of ratification by them.

THE DEBATE ON RATIFICATION

In debating this question, as to the mode of ratification by the States (the only one before the Convention), some of the most inflexible advocates of State sovereignty insisted that it should be ratified by “the people of the United States.” But then they understood this language, and every member of the Convention understood it to mean the peoples of the several States, as distinguished from their legislatures. If, for one moment, they had imagined that their language could have been construed to mean a ratification of the Constitution by the collective will of the whole people of America, they would have shrunk from its use with horror! for they dreaded nothing more than the idea of such an immense consolidated democracy. On the contrary, they clung to the States, and to their rights, as the only sheet-anchor of safety against the overwhelming and all-devouring floods of such a national union of mere numbers or individuals. George Mason, no less than Patrick Henry, would have exclaimed against the words, “We, the people,” if, as a member of the Convention of 1787, he had not learned that they only meant “We, the States.”

In discussing the question as to the mode of ratification by “the States,” Mr. Mason said “he considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the resolutions. The legislatures have no power to ratify it. . . . Another strong reason, said he, was that admitting the legislatures to have a competent authority it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding legislatures, having equal authority, could undo the acts of their predecessors.”1 This argument was repeatedly urged by other members, and it was insisted that if the Constitution should be ratified by the legislatures of the States, instead

__________

1 “Madison Papers,” p. 1177.

[63]

of by the people of the States, it would rest upon a weak and tottering foundation, since the legislatures which had established might claim the power to repeal. In like manner Mr. Madison said, “For these reasons, as well as for others, he thought it indispensable that the new Constitution should be ratified in the unexceptionable form, and by the supreme authority of the people themselves1—that is, as the context shows, by the supreme authority of the people of the several States in opposition to their “legislative sanction only.” Not one word was ever said during the whole of the debate about referring the Constitution to the people of the whole country in the aggregate for ratification. This idea had not then risen above the horizon of the political world, though it afterwards became the great political sun of the Northern section of the Union.

Those who advocated the mode of ratification by the people, or by the Conventions of the States elected for that purpose, prevailed over those who urged the ratification by the legislatures. The majority favored the mode of ratification by the people or the Conventions. Accordingly, when the committee of detail reported a draft of the Constitution, we find these words: “Article XXI. The ratifications of the Conventions of —— States shall be sufficient for the organization of this Constitution.”2 Thus it came to be perfectly understood that it should be ratified by the Conventions or the peoples of the several States, and not by their legislatures.

But here the question arose, if the blank for the number of States should be filled with “seven,” “eight,” or “nine.” The Constitution, as it stood, might, in the opinion of Mr. Madison, be put in force over “the whole body of the people, though less than a majority of them should ratify it.” But, in the opinion of Mr. Wilson, “As the Constitution stands, the States only which ratify can be bound.”3 In order to remove this difficulty, and settle the question, Mr. King moved to add, at the end of Article XXI, the words “between the said States, so as to confine the opera-

__________

1 “Madison Papers,” p. 796
2 “Ibid., p. 1241
3 Ibid., p. 1469

[64]

tion of the government to the States ratifying the same.”1 Thus it was Rufus King, at first one of the most strenuous advocates in the Convention of 1787 for a strong national government, who introduced the words by which the Constitution was made binding “between the States so ratifying the same.” These words proved acceptable to Madison and Wilson, though both were among the most zealous advocates of a strong general government in the Convention of 1787, and they became a part of the new Constitution.

Thus it was universally understood by the Convention, and so expressed, that the new Constitution was to be established “by the ratification of the Conventions of —— States,” and to be binding only “between the States so ratifying the same.”

During all this time the name of each State still retained its place in the preamble to the Constitution, in which the committee of detail made no change; and if the party, with Gerry and Hamilton at their head, who wished to fill the blank with the whole thirteen States, had prevailed, we have no reason to believe that any alteration would in this respect have been made in the preamble to the Constitution. But when, after debate, the blank was filled with “nine,” it became impossible to specify the States between whom the new Constitution might be established or the new government organized. Hence it became proper, if not necessary, to drop the specification of the States by name—a change which, as we have seen, was first introduced by the committee on style, and read to the Convention without raising the slightest objection or murmur.

We are now prepared to see, as in the clear light of noonday, why the words, “We, the people of the United States,” which have since made so much noise in the political world, did not make any whatever in the Convention of 1787. Why should George Mason, or any other adherent of State sovereignty, object to the words introduced by the committee on style? They merely expressed the very thing for which he had contended, and which had been fully expressed in the seventh Article of the new

__________

1 “Madison Papers,” p. 1470.

[65]

Constitution. For when it was determined that the Constitution should be ratified by “the Conventions of the States,” and not by the legislatures, this was exactly equivalent, in the uniform language of the Convention of 1787, to saying that it shall be ratified by “the people of the States.” Hence, the most ardent friend of State rights, or State sovereignty, saw no reason why he should object to the words, “We, the people of the United States,” because he knew they were only intended to express the mode of ratification by the States for which he had contended—that is, by the States in their sovereign capacity, as so many political societies or peoples, as distinguished from their legislatures.


nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   17:55:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: nolu chan (#49)

Birther stuff again? Where is that dentist/attorney/real estate broker/Martial arts expert Orly Taint when you need her?

PS: I don't get when last we spoke you went ballistic over Ted Cruz when I called him a grifter.

Pericles  posted on  2015-04-27   18:16:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#49)

I gave specific examples of citizens that do not fit within what you claim to be a definition of citizen. At #32, "persons born overseas to U.S. parents become natural born U.S. citizens at birth. They are not born in the United States nor are they naturalized."

Post the specific citing in the Constitution that says this.

We know from the exact words in the Consitution that someone born in a state is a citizen of that state. That is the only thing we know which comes directly from the words in the Constitution about who or what is a citizen. What the courts have subsequently ruled as to who may be a citizen comes from interpretation of the Constitution through testing it. All of your references are secondhand opinions or rulings of what the Consitution means and as such can readily change over time.

The Consitution itself says nothing about who or what a person is. Any such court determination (which now deems a corporation to be a person) likewise are secondhand opinions or rulings of what the Consitution means and as such can readily change over time.

"the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution."

I will grant that this MAY be one interpretation but a highly bastardize one. The words clearly refer to the collective people of the U.S.

"All the people of one state are the state."

Really? What happens when a citizen of one state moves to another. Of which state are they citizen (NB - Unless they renounce it they are ALWAYS a citizen of the U.S.). They can only vote (NB - a Constitutional right on a national/collective basis) in one state. In which state MUST they vote?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   19:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Pericles (#51)

Birther stuff again?

No, constitutional stuff. Do you have any substantive issue with it?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   21:48:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: SOSO, tpaine (#52)

"the people" are the same as those in "We the people." It refers to the people of the States. Saying it refers to the consolidated mass of people as a nation requires willful bastardization of the Constitution."

I will grant that this MAY be one interpretation but a highly bastardize one. The words clearly refer to the collective people of the U.S.

You have some dissent from the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation.

2 Dal. 463 (1794)

There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State.

2 Dal. 473 (1794)

And, of course, the records of the Constitutional Convention document that you are full of crap.

FARRAND’s RECORDS and the Preamble, We the People

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   21:58:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: nolu chan (#54)

"The PEOPLE of the United states" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states, each of which had a separate constitution and government, and all of which were connected together by Articles of Confederation.

Yes, collecively called the U.S. It doesn't mean jack sh*t if a person moved from one state to another, that person is still a citizen of the U.S. It doesn't mean jack sh*t that each state has its separate constitution and government. The overarching principle is that they are all part of the U.S., collectively. Over a lifetime a person could live in all 50 states, his status as a citizen of the U.S. or more accurately of We The People, does not change one iota. So sayeth SCOTUS. I will abide by that. You?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   22:12:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: nolu chan (#54)

There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State.

So what? That doesn't support your psotion at all. People within each state can also sue each other. BFD.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   22:14:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: SOSO, tpaine (#15)

I gave specific examples of citizens that do not fit within what you claim to be a definition of citizen. At #32, "persons born overseas to U.S. parents become natural born U.S. citizens at birth. They are not born in the United States nor are they naturalized."

Post the specific citing in the Constitution that says this.

Your question is just bullshit. John McCain was born outside the United States and was not naturalized, and ran for President. He is a Senator and a citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and is a Senator and a citizen through birth to a U.S. citizen parent.

You are the one who said at #15, "I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen." Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens. You suffer from the delusion that the 14th Amendment contains an exclusive definition of citizenship. It doesn't and never has.

People born overseas, outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, are natural born U.S. citizens if a parent is a citizen.

You are so legally incompetent that you cannot identify the part of the Constitution that applies, or why it applies.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   22:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: SOSO (#56)

So what? That doesn't support your psotion at all. People within each state can also sue each other. BFD.

any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State

Read it again. The Court said that a state and all the people of a state are interchangeable terms.

Continue. You are fun to watch.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   22:36:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: nolu chan (#57)

Your question is just bullshit. John McCain was born outside the United States and was not naturalized, and ran for President. He is a Senator and a citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and is a Senator and a citizen through birth to a U.S. citizen parent.

You are full of sh*t. I am not disputing that people born outside of the U.S. can be citizens. I just asked you to post the specific language in the Constitution that says that. You can't because it doesn't exit as such. Don't blame me for your inability to produce somethnig that doesn't exist while you insist that it does.

So call me legally incompetent if that makes you feel better, just lead me out of the wilderness and show me where in the Consitution it states what you claim it does. I will even accept showing me what part of the Consitution applies. Just do it and you may prove you point.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   22:37:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: SOSO (#55)

So sayeth SCOTUS.

What imaginary SCOTUS opinion are you channeling?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   22:37:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: SOSO (#59)

You are full of sh*t. I am not disputing that people born outside of the U.S. can be citizens. I just asked you to post the specific language in the Constitution that says that.

You are the one who said at #15, "I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen." Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens. You suffer from the delusion that the 14th Amendment contains an exclusive definition of citizenship. It doesn't and never has.

You said you could do it. You have failed.

You cannot challenge the obvious fact that persons that do not fall within the 14th Amendment provision become citizens all the time. They are in the Senate and have run for President. And you cannot explain how that is provided for because you are a blathering dolt.

But you are fun to watch.

And no, I am not going to point out the constitutional provision to your sorry ass.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-27   22:42:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: nolu chan (#60)

The same authority as this. Seems that the Consitution wasn't quite specific enough and the "rules" were changed.

And then there is this.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough.

As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S."

QED the Consitution does not support you claim. All the Consitution does is leave it to Congress to pass a laws goberning citizenship. It does not prescribe the content of that law. Has these laws been challenged or tested in the courts? Has SCOTUS ever ruled on them?

The only thing it clearly states is what I said it does.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   22:52:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: nolu chan, y'all, soso, (#60)

SOSO ---- So sayeth SCOTUS.

What imaginary SCOTUS opinion are you channeling? -- Nolu Chan

Good luck on getting a rational answer. ---- I've given up on having any sort of normal dialog with our boy SOSO. -- He's starting to remind me of how Yukon on old LP 'debated'. -- Virtually nonstop non-sequitur 'questions'.

This quote of his sort of sums it up: -- потому что Бог хочет это тот путь ["Because God wants it that way."] -- Nonsense tag line from SOSO. (Who is this guy?)

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   23:08:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: nolu chan (#61)

You are the one who said at #15, "I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen." Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens.

I did exactly that. You are being a total moron now. Over and out, turd brain.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   23:23:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: tpaine (#63)

Up yours, you dumb jerk.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   23:24:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: All (#61)

Ping.

CONCLUSION

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally."

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   23:32:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: SOSO, y'all (#65)

-- Up yours --- link

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/

Thanks for the link to your weirdo site, soso!

It explains a lot, on where you're getting these bizarre opinions.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   23:53:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SOSO, y'all (#65)

-- Up yours --- link

www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/

Thanks for the link to your weirdo site, soso!

It explains a lot, on where you're getting these bizarre opinions.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   23:54:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: SOSO (#52)

What happens when a citizen of one state moves to another.

His or her mail gets lost?

The Consitution itself says nothing about who or what a person is. Any such court determination (which now deems a corporation to be a person) likewise are secondhand opinions or rulings of what the Consitution means and as such can readily change over time.

Actually the Federal government has acted on a grant of authority to determine citizenship ever since day 1 of the constitutional government. Damn, it must be tough to go through life as lost as you are.

They can only vote (NB - a Constitutional right on a national/collective basis) in one state.

No. There is no constitutional right to vote. Nobody has a constitutional right to vote.

Damn, you're a funny guy. But you have a commanding knowledge of imaginary law.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-28   0:54:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: tpaine (#63)

I've given up on having any sort of normal dialog with our boy SOSO. -- He's starting to remind me of how Yukon on old LP 'debated'. -- Virtually nonstop non-sequitur 'questions'.

Yes, I've noticed the similarity.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-28   1:26:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: SOSO (#64)

[nolu chan #61] Actually, you have proven that you cannot accurately explain who are citizens.

[SOSO #64] I did exactly that.

Yes you did.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-28   1:31:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: tpaine, SOSO (#68)

Thanks for the link to your weirdo site, soso!

The link at the ping is http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

This quotes a legendary birther article from The Post & Email of October 18, 2009 by John Charlton which is available at the below link:

https://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

Charlton's comments in general are a memorable hoot, but especially his bass ackwards blather about The Venus 12 U.S. (8 Cranch.) 253 (1814).

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Justice Livingston did not write any opinion. "Justice Livingston," using "his own English" managed to replicate the words of the 1760 edition in English translation. He concurred with the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. Chief Justice Marshall provided the quote of Vattel in his dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions say nothing for the Court. Obviously, the decision was not unanimous.

Justice Washington wrote the opinion of the majority. The majority considered Vattel's writings, commented that, "[i]n deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicil, it is not to be expected, that much, if any, assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations." The majority then proceeded to decide by reference to British law.

It is a birther achievement to get that much wrong in one sentence.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-29   19:29:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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