A mangled Constitution

Discussion in 'Legal Philosophy' started by Packyderm, Aug 8, 2016.

  1. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188

    yep the whole shebang was brought forward in fraud.


    We the People? or We the States?

    Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

    you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

    It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

    I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

    The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

    --------------------------------------------

    So now that they rammed their illegal constitution through, now they had to clean up the mess they made.

    The constitution/BoR is said to be a product between the states therefore applied only to the states.

    So.....The second amendment therefore assures the 'states' the right to exercise their religion, and if a 'state' murders someone a right to a jury and so forth. I would like to know how we can throw a state in jail for a murder or a capital crime?:ack-1: Makes perfect sense doesnt it? Prima facia fraud and Henry blew the whistle on them.


    You heard it here first
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
  2. Wry Catcher
    Online

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    44,462
    Thanks Received:
    5,856
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +16,866
    I'll take your advice and read every thing you post with caution in mind (case in point: "liberals always lie").

    BTW, the Congressional Record is not an accurate source of what really went on, every member of Congress has the right to revise their comments before it is published. The Prof. who told me (us) that was a former Congressman from CA who was teaching courses in Poli Sci at SFSU.
     
  3. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188
    I dont have the case right in front of me but it seems t me it was the idaho supreme court went right up to the very edge in dicta stating it is unconstituional and left it without a positive affirmation because that was not the cause of action. Maybe someone else remembers the case.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    47,982
    Thanks Received:
    10,226
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,815
    Repeating the same ridiculous lie doesn’t make it ‘true.’
     
  5. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188
    what are you talking about, I didnt post any lies.
     
  6. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    166,426
    Thanks Received:
    14,930
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +51,084
    Anyone one who puts the "state" supremacy before We the People is a Statist of massive proportions.
     
  7. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188

    Found it:

    Supreme Court Justice Ellet:

    Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968

    It is necessary to review the historical background to understand how the Fourteenth Amendment came to be a part of our Federal Constitution.

    General Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and General Johnston surrendered his 17 days later. Within a period of less than six weeks thereafter, not one Confederate soldier was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were all restored by presidential proclamation to their proper positions as states in an indissoluble union,[1] and practically all citizens thereof[2] had been granted amnesty. Immediately thereafter each of the seceding states functioned as regular states in the Union with both state and federal courts in full operation.

    President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of the slaves.

    The 11 southern states having taken their rightful and necessary place in the indestructible Union proceeded to determine whether to ratify or reject the proposed Thirteenth Amendment. In order to become a part of the Constitution, it was necessary that the proposed amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36 states. Among those 27 states ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment were 10 from the South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.

    When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36 states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from the southern states were denied seats. They declared that the states never 'really' seceded and at the same time denied them suffrage.

    Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted to the 36 states for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33 senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated senators.

    While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election. Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.

    In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 absententions it was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the House.

    Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by Congress. It must be ratified by three fourths of the states in the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution. The method of securing the passage through Congress is set out above, as it throws some light on the means used to obtain ratification by the states thereafter.

    Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there were at the time 37 states in the Union. A rejection by 10 states would thus defeat the proposal.

    By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the proposal was defeated.

    One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment. However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared passed.

    Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.

    By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two — Louisiana and Delaware — had rejected it. Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.

    By spurious, nonrepresentative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional — except when the act purported to amend the Constitution.[6] The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit, to count and determine when three fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment. He could not determine that a state once having rejected a proposed amendment could thereafter approve it, nor could he determine that a state once having ratified that proposal could thereafter reject it. The court and not Congress should determine such matters. Consistency would seem to require that a vote once cast would be final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for ratification or rejection.

    In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

    To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration[7] to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

    How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.[8]

    We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.
     
  8. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    166,426
    Thanks Received:
    14,930
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +51,084
    "To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme", however, is exactly what the Alt Right wants to do when SCOTUS is not in their corner" and "The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution" comes directly from the long post above, #58 by kokomojo. The inherent inconsistency of those two statement render the post's logic null and void. The Alt Right wants total control, period.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188
    nah it renders your comprehension of his intended meaning null and void.
     
  10. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    166,426
    Thanks Received:
    14,930
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +51,084
    So you can't handle the truth of the inconsistency of the two parts of the post. OK. Your inability does not render my conclusion invalid.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page