Was Reconstruction a Military Occupation?

[Mushroom]

Are you serious? Every territory that formed a state and wanted to join the Union had to ratify the U.S. Constitution. You can Google this.

Google AI says the following:

Arizona ratified the U.S. Constitution upon becoming the 48th state on February 14, 1912. As a territory preparing for statehood, Arizona adopted its own state constitution in 1910 and formally joined the Union in 1912.

And this is exactly why I say that AI really stands for "Artificial Idiocy".

OK then mister genius, then explain how the Arizona Territory was also under the Constitution. Puerto Rico is under the Constitution, and it's not a state. The same with Guam, American Samoa, and all the other US Territories. Are you going to even try to claim that before an era becomes a territory, they have to ratify the Constitution?

There is a damned good reason why I laugh whenever somebody actually tries to use AI to answer a question. A hell of a lot of the time it's simply wrong, and this is a perfect example of that. That might make sense, if a person is an imbecile and unable to use critical thinking when making that claim. But from the moment that land became known as the Unincorporated Territory of New Mexico, it fell under the US Constitution. And when that specific part was broken off of New Mexico into the Arizona Territory, it was still under the US Constitution.

I not only consider AI to be Artificial Idiocy, it also more often than not tends to have a bias to confirming echo chambers. The way questions are worded tends to cause it to vomit up similar things found, after all it really is nothing but a kind of search engine. But one that is much less accurate as it uses "fuzzy logic" to try and find matches that are not exact.

My number one piece of advice is to never trust AI over actual research. The Constitution was only ratified by the original 13 states. Period. Anything that claims otherwise is simply wrong.

Which is why I stated for an actual reference verifying the claim that states ratify the US Constitution. If the best you can do is get AI to claim it is so, I consider that busted.

Oh, and by the way, almost all AI engines still have it turned off saying that gasoline can be used in cooking. They still do not know why or how, but somehow in the early days AI engines all got "trained" in thinking that gasoline is an acceptable ingredient in cooking. And for years now they have been trying to train it to not suggest gasoline as part of a recipe.

No matter how hard they tried, they could not convince the AI that cooking with gasoline was not good. So finally they essentially lobotomized them, so not they will not respond at all if a question is asked involving gasoline and cooking. There are quite a few cases where AI was lobotomized to not answer questions, I find that one of the most funny to be honest.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And this is exactly why I say that AI really stands for "Artificial Idiocy".

OK then mister genius, then explain how the Arizona Territory was also under the Constitution. Puerto Rico is under the Constitution, and it's not a state. The same with Guam, American Samoa, and all the other US Territories. Are you going to even try to claim that before an era becomes a territory, they have to ratify the Constitution?

When an area is approved to be a U.S. territory, only parts of the Constitution apply to it. When the territory applies for statehood, part of the statehood process is to ratify the Constitution, which can be done in various ways, including a simple pledge to follow the Constitution or an acknowledgement of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, or to submit a state constitution that does not violate or contradict the U.S. Constitution. This formally binds the state to recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The main criterion for Congress to approve a territory's proposed state constitution is that the state constitution does not contradict or violate the U.S. Constitution.

I mean, think about it: What national government would not require a territory to agree to follow the national constitution before admitting the territory as one of its states?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When an area is approved to be a U.S. territory, only parts of the Constitution apply to it. When the territory applies for statehood, part of the statehood process is to ratify the Constitution, which can be done in various ways, including a simple pledge to follow the Constitution or an acknowledgement of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, or to submit a state constitution that does not violate or contradict the U.S. Constitution. This formally binds the state to recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The main criterion for Congress to approve a territory's proposed state constitution is that the state constitution does not contradict or violate the U.S. Constitution.

I mean, think about it: What national government would not require a territory to agree to follow the national constitution before admitting the territory as one of its states?

I can't decide who is the bigger moron, you or Quantrill!

 

[Mushroom]

When an area is approved to be a U.S. territory, only parts of the Constitution apply to it.

Everything short of their rights to vote in national elections and to have voting members in Congress.

That's pretty much it. They are still bound to the Constitution, laws made by Congress applies to them, Court rulings up to the Supreme Court apply to them. Everybody born there is a US Citizen by birth. Which includes serving in the military and even running for Prsident.

That is a real nice lot of absolute nothing horsecrap you just said.

This was decided well over a hundred years ago. In what is known as the "Insular Cases" in 1901. Which for the first time the US took control of islands that were not connected to the "Continental US", and had not previously been their own status other than as a colony of another nation. And in those cases, they formalized what we now know of as what rights and powers a Territory has.

In short, everything but voting representatives in Congress. That's a right only extended to states, as stated in the Constitution. This is why the Supreme Court made that decision 125 years ago. And without representation in Congress, they obviously can not take part in Presidential Elections.

Come on dude, this is written quite clearly in the Constitution itself! I mean, you are literally trying to claim that the part of the Constitution that outlines how Congress is assembled does not apply, when that actually came from the Constitution.

Talk about an absolutely insane circular argument!

And that is all in the Constitution that does not apply, because the Constitution itself gave those rights only to states. That is the incentive for territories ranging from Colorado and Idaho to Arizona and Alaska wanting to become states in the first place. Without that exclusion as written, why even become a state in the first place?

And say if Jefferson was to ever break away from California and Oregon, it would probably be similar. First formed as the "Jefferson Territory" as they held a Constitutional Convention and applied for statehood. The only thing similar once again was West Virginia. Which as previously stated was only given an exception because Virginia itself was in a state of rebellion.

Sorry, I can't get over how you are even trying to claim that the Constitution does not apply, then do not even bother to say where it does not apply. When the only area it does not "apply" was something clearly stated in the Constitution itself!

 

[Mushroom]

I mean, think about it: What national government would not require a territory to agree to follow the national constitution before admitting the territory as one of its states?

A rational one? One that believes in the rule of law, equal rights to all and not just wanting a colony of slaves?

Tell me, does the Constitution apply to Guam? Puerto Rico? American Samoa? American Virgin Islands?

Are you even trying to say that the Constitution does not apply to those territories?

 

[mikegriffith1]

A rational one? One that believes in the rule of law, equal rights to all and not just wanting a colony of slaves?
Tell me, does the Constitution apply to Guam? Puerto Rico? American Samoa? American Virgin Islands? Are you even trying to say that the Constitution does not apply to those territories?

What is it about you guys that you can't even concede the most minor of points? If you had done any serious research on the Constitution and U.S. territories, you would know that only parts of the Constitution apply to territories until they become states. Have you heard of the Supreme Court's Insular Cases decisions? They established that territories are considered unincorporated and are not bound by every provision of the Constitution, and that Congress has the power to determine which parts of the Constitution apply to a given territory.

Obviously, when a territory becomes a state, that changes and it is required to recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and all parts of the Constitution apply to it.

Some reading for you:

U.S. Territories | Center for the Study of Federalism

Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”...

federalism.org

Territorial Courts, Constitutions, and Organic Acts, Explained

There are five inhabited U.S. territories, each with its own court system and governing documents.

statecourtreport.org

 

[Mushroom]

If you had done any serious research on the Constitution and U.S. territories, you would know that only parts of the Constitution apply to territories until they become states. Have you heard of the Supreme Court's Insular Cases decisions?

I think this is particularly funny, especially considering the very post of mine you are trying to argue against.

This was decided well over a hundred years ago. In what is known as the "Insular Cases" in 1901. Which for the first time the US took control of islands that were not connected to the "Continental US", and had not previously been their own status other than as a colony of another nation. And in those cases, they formalized what we now know of as what rights and powers a Territory has.

In which I actually broke down what the differences were between being a state and a territory. Which you attack, and at the same time completely ignore. And even more comically, you say multiple times that there are "not bound by every provision of the Constitution", and even more humorously never say what those differences actually are. Where as I explicitly stated what they are, and it's pretty much just that they do not have voting representatives in Congress.

Look, I am about completely done with this. I have been posting some very specific things talking about the actual legal differences. And all you are doing is lashing out and venting your spleen, apparently not even reading what I posted and attacking me instead of discussing the facts.

And the simple fact is, all US territories, be they a state or not are under the Constitution. And only the original "Thirteen Colonies" (later Thirteen States) ratified the Constitution. From that moment on no more states ratified it because it was the law of the land. Be it a state, an organized or unorganized territory, even a US sovereign outpost in a foreign nation (say an embassy, consulate or US military enclave). So yes, a US serviceman in Japan or US embassy staff in Brunei all still fall under the Constitution. Enjoying the same protections and limitations as a US Citizen in Oklahoma.

And the same limited rights in those locations as a US Resident inside the US or in one of their legal enclaves overseas.

Is this the only way you can respond? By completely ignoring what is posted, and just ranting without giving any actual specifics or examples? Because I am about done with this if that is the only way you are capable of responding.

 

[there4eyeM]

Foreign territory may be "occupied". An army operating in its own country may be doing many things; but it is not occupying.