The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[JakeStarkey]

You set a standard that is not required.

The questions have been fully answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable standard.

Time for the "CSA" to find a new advocate.

You don't have what it takes.

JAKE,
Read the Articles.
Article XIII States that any alteration in the articles require confirmation by each States legislature, hence a vote was required by each States legislature on alteration of each article that was altered. If such votes were taken, please cite them.
Seems your USA needs a new spokesman because you lack the knowledge to rise up to the job.

We are talking about the Constitution, and you are talking about the Articles. Hint: they are not the same. Truth: the states as our Agents of We the People ratified the Constitution, per Article 7. As long as you are the advocate of the 'CSA', America is safe.

 

[James Everett]

Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.

Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.

Article 6 claims otherwise.

Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.
As for Article VI of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution...
It does not apply to secession as there was no law, or Amendment making secession an illegal act hence no lawful authority within that CONstitution. Further......
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.

You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.

Articles 6 and 7 of our federal Constitution are all that is needed to transition to a new government:

Here is an example from just Article 6:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.

Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.
Also the Articles were a federal Constitution, under a wholly federal system. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution instituted only a partially federal system cobbled together with a partially National .system which now as a result of Lincoln's rebellion is a wholly national system.
Interestingly the U.S. CONstitution was established in violation of law our Southern States secession's were not, hence we have a legal right to restore our Confederacy and use our Constitution as a legal means to amend our way back to the legal U.S. Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation.

Article 6 claims otherwise.

Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.
As for Article VI of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution...
It does not apply to secession as there was no law, or Amendment making secession an illegal act hence no lawful authority within that CONstitution. Further......
Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.

You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.

Articles 6 and 7 of our federal Constitution are all that is needed to transition to a new government:

Here is an example from just Article 6:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You just said it....
"You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government."
So, you admit that our old government (The Articles of Confederation) were replaced by a new Government?
I have shown you that our 1781 Constitution required every State legislature to confirm any alteration of any part of the Articles, yet the State legislatures did not confirm any of the changes. Clearly the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was the result of rebellion to the lawful authority of Article XIII.
One cannot consider something legal that is derived from an illegal act.
Anything you quote that was derived from the poison fruit of that first illegal and unlawful act is null and void.
The only avenue remaining open to you is to reject the law in favor of the illegal and unlawful.
Under our De jure Constitution which are the Articles of Confederation, there was no "House of Representatives", There were no districts, there was no national component, there only existed a wholly federal system with State government representatives. All that existed within the collective body was...."CONGRESS IN SESSION". There was no District of Columbia, the Congress met in session in differing locations.
Any authority was derived from the people through their State government. Under the illegal 1787/1789 Constitution a two party duopoly was put in place of the State governments as a means to represent the people, hence without any participation between the State governments in legislation or the central body, then clearly thay perpetual union was destroyed by the 1787/1789 CONstitution.
Convincing you to accept the truth is not paramount, it is the many who we wish to reach with the truth and the purpose of our effort of restoration.

 

[James Everett]

You set a standard that is not required.

The questions have been fully answered to the satisfaction of a reasonable standard.

Time for the "CSA" to find a new advocate.

You don't have what it takes.

JAKE,
Read the Articles.
Article XIII States that any alteration in the articles require confirmation by each States legislature, hence a vote was required by each States legislature on alteration of each article that was altered. If such votes were taken, please cite them.
Seems your USA needs a new spokesman because you lack the knowledge to rise up to the job.

We are talking about the Constittuion, and you are talking about the Articles. Hint: they are not the same. Truth: the states as our Agents of We the People ratified the Constitution. As long as you are the advocate of the 'CSA', America is safe.

JAKE,
If the State legislatures did ratify YOUR CONstitution, then please cite the votes within those State legislatures.
You cannot do this even for one State, as such never occurred, hence an illegal act was perpetrated.
And I want to offer you this advice.,,,,
Using little smiley faces and such only make any point you ever make even if relevant seem childish and unprofessional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.

And the various states as agents of We the People did ratify the Constitution. To suggest they did not when James knows they did is lying.

 

[James Everett]

No one has explained why ratification of our new Constitution didn't automatically "close the position" on the previous constitution as stated in Article 7 and Article 6.

As I have stated, the act in which the 1787/1788 CONstitution was ratified was in violation of law, hence illegal. Any act thereafter as a result of the first illegal act is poisoned fruit, thus illegal/spoiled as well.

 

[danielpalos]

Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.

It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.

 

[James Everett]

James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.

JAKE,
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.

 

[James Everett]

Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.

It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.

This is why we exist under occupation because two cannot occupy the same space. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is illegally occupying the place of the 1781 legal Constitution.

 

[James Everett]

What is meant by "your constitution"?

Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.

JAKE,
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.

James,
You must provide the proof because the affirmation is yours.

In fact, the Congress, not having to alter by amendment the government, accepted the proposed Constitution and passed it on to the states.

Do you understand the differences of amendment and legislation of ACC?

You seem very weak on this difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.

It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.

This is why we exist under occupation because two cannot occupy the same space. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is illegally occupying the place of the 1781 legal Constitution.

A premise without any factual proof other than your imagination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is meant by "your constitution"?

Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.

Your voluntary acceptance was granted by the states as our agents of We the People. You may not like it, but your are morally and legally bound by the document.

 

[James Everett]

James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.

JAKE,
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.

James,
You must provide the proof because the affirmation is yours.

In fact, the Congress, not having to alter by amendment the government, accepted the proposed Constitution and passed it on to the states.

Do you understand the differences of amendment and legislation of ACC?

You seem very weak on this difference.

Again, JAKE, read article XIII of our 1781 Constitution.
Any alteration in that Constitution required the approval of every States legislature. This act requires the States Constitutions legislative act, which in each State is by vote of that States legislative body and process of becoming law.
Again this lawful procedure was not followed hence the act of ratification was an illegal and unlawful act.
It is not possible nor my place to produce evidence of a process that never took place, it is yours to provide evidence that it did, however such is not possible for you as such never took place.

 

[James Everett]

What is meant by "your constitution"?

Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.

Your voluntary acceptance was granted by the states as our agents of We the People. You may not like it, but your are morally and legally bound by the document.

jAKE,
I apologize but I cannot continue to have a discussion with someone such as you who is so ignorant of the issues that it is too difficult to take the time to educate.
You have some emotional growing up to accomplish,and then some education is desperately needed.

 

[James Everett]

James is under the impression that his opinion is evidence. He is suggesting that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles. His suggestion is not proof. He does not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. He cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.

His opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely his opinion, nothing else.

Jake,please stop blathering, you don't know what you are talking about, alteration is amending, legislation is alteration. You are a blithering idiot!

 

[James Everett]

James, the issue is yours, so nothing to apologize about. You project on to me your lack of maturity and education.

You made a premise that you cannot provide the evidence for. The opposition never has to prove the case for the affirmative. Your are under the impression that your opinion is evidence. You suggest that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles without evidence. Your suggestion is not proof. You do not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. You cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.

Your opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely your opinion, nothing else.
As such you and your premise fail.

Jake,
Go play with your X box.

 

[JakeStarkey]

James, the issue is yours, so nothing to apologize about. You project on to me your lack of maturity and education.

Your blathering made several premises that you cannot provide the evidence for. The opposition never has to prove the case for the affirmative. Your are under the impression that your opinion is evidence. You suggest that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles without evidence. Your suggestion is not proof. You do not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. You cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.

Your opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely your opinion, nothing else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following will guide your further education, James.

"Was the Constitution Illegally Adopted? Michael P. Farris1 * Abstract: This article analyzes the claim that the Constitution was illegally ratified in 1788. This claim is founded on the premise that the Constitutional Convention violated its mandate by adopting a wholly new document rather than simply altering the Articles of Confederation, and by allowing the proposed Constitution to be ratified without unanimous ratification by the states. The article concludes that the Constitution can truly be seen as both a series of amendments and a name change, which was subsequently unanimously accepted by the First Congress. Further, the ratification process was not illegal, as all thirteen state conventions accepted the change in ratification procedure, although only eleven state conventions approved of the document before its adoption."

*Dr. Michael P. Farris is the founding President and current Chancellor of Patrick Henry College and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Michael lives with his wife, Vickie, in Purcellville, Virginia with their 10 children and 12 grandchildren.
http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring 2011/Constitution Illegally Adopted.pdf

 

[danielpalos]

James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.

JAKE,
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.

Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.

Our new fangled, hybrid Constitution required representatives of the People to ratify it.

 

[there4eyeM]

A great deal is beiing assumed concerning 'me'.