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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "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. 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: 18732 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   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42. #1. To: tpaine (#0) “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.” What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? SOSO  posted on  2015-04-25   13:59:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: SOSO (#1) "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.” What does the phrase "or to the people" mean? 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" [of the States]. In my opinion, the writers of our constitution deliberately made it as short as possible, in order to keep it simple. -- Thus, they would have seen ' of the States', -- as redundant. Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State. The state itself has NO power except that which is delegated, constitutionally, by the people. tpaine  posted on  2015-04-25   15:23:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: tpaine (#4) Obviously, to them, the people of the States held ALL the power within the State. Hardly obvious at all. It could just as easily mean the people of the U.S.. You are certainly entitled to you opinion but that does not mean that it is correct. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-25   17:05:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: SOSO, tpaine (#6) Hardly obvious at all. It could just as easily mean the people of the U.S.. You are certainly entitled to you opinion but that does not mean that it is correct. Obvious enough when it was said and written. The consolidated people of the United States have never acted to do anything, not even to pass a referendum. The Republic of Republics, 4th Ed., Benjamin Janin Sage as P.C. Centz, Barrister, 1881, pages 373-381 https://archive.org/details/republicrepubli00sagegoog - - - - - 373 PART V. CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES. CHAPTER I. “THE PEOPLE” ARE SOVEREIGN STATES. TREATING the matter in the main historically, or rather by quoting the statements and opinions of the fathers, I shall maintain the following Fundamental Principles. — I. The people are the states, and, as such, they compose whatever nation there is; and the general government is the agency of the states, by and through which they exercise federal self-government. II. The fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. III. Federal acts, outside of delegated powers, were to be treated as nullities, and, if attempted to be enforced, resisted as usurpations. IV. The federal government is not only without authority, but is actually prohibited, to coerce the state with arms, by legislation, or even judicially. V. The states in the union have the unlimited right of self-defence, even, if need be, against the federal agency. VI. To defend the state with arms, in obedience to her will, is the duty of the member or citizen, and is not treason in any sense, but is true loyalty. The reader will find the corollaries or considerations, involved iu this last and most important point, stated at the beginning of Chapter VI., infra; and he should by all means read them now, for thereby he can see, and measurably appreciate, the scope, if not the pith, of the whole great argument. The last point (VI.) is the citadel of American institutional liberty! - - - - - 374 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON. The States are the People and Polity. Point I. — The people are the states and, as such, they compose whatever nation there is; and the general government is the agency of the states, by and through which they exercise federal self-government. The people are states, and are sovereign, for they are republics, or self-governing bodies of people. They were never organized otherwise. Nor have they any capacity for political action, except as states; and it is they (and not their government, local or general), that hold, inherently and ab origine, the sovereign, exclusive, and unqualified right and power to govern all the people and territory within them. Just as they pre-existed, they were named and provided for in the federal constitution, as well as recognized as the sole parties to and actors under it; and the identical, original states now exist, unchanged in any particular. And the general government is their agency, for it is made up personally of their subjects, and it only possesses and acts by derivative and delegative power. All the foregoing parts of this work are devoted to the proof of the above proposition, so that I shall content myself here with two or three decisive quotations, fully covering the ground, simply to indicate this link of the chain, while emphasizing and reimpressing the vital truth it involves. Said Daniel Webster, in his speech of 1833: “The sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America, . . . But with us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign, and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such power as they please.” George Ticknor Curtis states it as “the American doctrine” that all supreme power resides originally in the people, and that all governments are constituted by them as the agents and depositaries of that power.1 To the same effect, I quote from among numerous authorities before me, James Wilson’s statement in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention : “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power is in the people, before they make a constitution, and remains in them 1 “Agents” do not act, or “depositaries” hold, for themselves. Hence, Mr. Curtis is solecistic in saying, as he does or seems to do, that they are the depositaries of sovereign authority, instead of “powers” delegated by the said authority. I accept his truth as an admission, and reject his mistake. - - - - - 375 “THE PEOPLE” ARE SOVEREIGN STATES. after it is made. . . . The sovereignty resides in the people, and it never leaves them.” [II. Ell. Deb. 432, et seq.] He meant the people as organized in societies or commonwealths, and not as a nation, for he spoke of “ thirteen independent sovereignties “ as the parties then deliberating and acting. [Mass. Centinel, Oct. 24, 1787; Am. Mus., Vol. I.] I conclude this point by referring to the numerous quotations made heretofore from Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Adams, and the rest of the fathers, especially in Chapter VII. of Part I., and by repeating that the people are the states, and, as such, they compose whatever nation there is; and the “general government” is the ageney of the states, by and through whioh they exercise federal self-government. Q. E. D. - - - - - 376 CHAPTER II FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. POINT II — The fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. The use of undelegated power by the federal government, or the individuals thereof, involves their perjury and treason, for they are all sworn to support and obey the constitution, — such oath being, in effect, to use granted, and not use ungranted, powers, — the latter being “retained,” or “reserved,” by the sovereigns as their most precious treasures. And it was never dreamed of that federal officers — the elect of the people, and “the excellent of the earth” — could ever become such villains as to perjure themselves, and thus deprive the people of the great security against usurpation referred to by Webster when he said : ”The constitution, to preserve itself, lays hold of individual conscience and individual duty.” The tendency and end of such federal increment is necessarily to degrade, and finally to overthrow and destroy, the sovereigns of the country. Unfortunately, encroachments on reserved powers in a republic are insidious and unappreciated, until their sum amounts to revolution and the loss of liberty! When the federalizing of the states was under discussion, the great fear was that the general government might transcend its granted powers, to nationalize or consolidate them. The vehement attacks of Henry, Mason, Martin, Lowndes, Yates, and others, were nearly fatal. Every advocate of the new plan insisted on federalizing the states, and disavowed and denounced the idea of consolidating or nationalizing them. For example, the great Fisher Ames said, in the Massachusetts ratifying convention: “No argument against the new plan has made a deeper impression than this, that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is an effect which all good men deprecate. . . . The state governments are essential parts of the system. . . . The senators represent the sovereignty of the states ... in the quality of ambassadors of states. . . . A consolidation of the states - - - - - 377 FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. would subvert the new constitution, against which this very article [that providing for senators to serve six years] is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation.” Said Chancellor Pendleton, in the convention of Virginia, in reference to this very objection: “If this be such a government, I will confess with my worthy friend [Patrick Henry] that it is inadmissible.” Similarly spoke others, in all the principal ratifying and delegating states; and no friend of the constitution ever dissented. The advocates of the plan, admitting that the federal functionaries were to be (not angels — but) men of average weakness and wickedness, showed the danger to be much overrated, and strove to ascertain it precisely, and forefend it. They argued, as will be hereafter seen, that there was no power whatever to coerce states in any manner; that the states had the right of self-defence, even against the federal government; that they only delegated power, or bound themselves in union, voluntarily, and could withdraw, or retract delegations at will; and, in short, that state integrity and sovereignty were secure. Carefully Guarding against Consolidation. — Nay, more, out of abundance of caution, the advocates, to prevent possible dangers, or, at all events, to remove doubts, proposed amendments. This over-caution was started in the Massachusetts convention, where, after long and animated debate, it was found that the opposition was likely to prevail. Thereupon a “conciliatory proposition “ was made by the federalizers, through John Hancock, the president, to the effect that the convention should ratify, with the understanding that the states should speedily make amendments. Chief among those proposed was the following: That “all powers not expressly delegated, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.” But even then, though Samuel Adams, the great leader of the opposition, joined Hancock, and both expressed “full confidence” in the amendments being adopted, such were the fear and prejudice, that ratification was only carried by a majority of 19 in 355 votes. [II. Ell. Deb. 181.] And, indeed, so deep and widespread were the apprehension and doubt on this subject, that in several of the states the constitution was barely carried. And Hildreth, the Massachusetts historian, thinks, on a retrospect, that if a vote of the general people had been taken, the decision would have been adverse. This amendment was a mere truism, and was to give emphasis to what already existed in the nature of things; for actual delegations only were put in the plan; and the powers not put in were kept out, and, of course, retained by the commonwealths of people. Hence the amendment was needed only to enable the said people “clearly to see the distinction,” remove their fears, and give confidence and hope. - - - - - 378 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON. This is evident from the debate and the ordinance of ratification [see II. Ell. Deb. 122-177, et seq.]; and Samuel Adams wrote Elbridge Gerry and R. H. Lee, in congress, in 1789, pressing on the latter, “the importance of the amendments, that the good people may clearly see the distinction between the federal powers vested in congress, and the sovereign authority belonging to the several states, which is the palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizens;” and urging to the former, that “without such distinction, there will be danger of the constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated government, over all the states, which, though it may be wished for by some, was reprobated in the idea by the highest advocates of the constitution as it stood without amendment” [See III. Life of Samuel Adams.] Numerous evidences of this view could be given. One will suffice. Said General C. C. Pinckney, in the debate on ratification in South Carolina: No powers can be “in the general government but what are expressly granted to it. By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution.” Successively, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York joined Massachusetts in her demand for this great amendment. And it is more than probable that the general approval of it, and the “full confidence” in its being adopted, caused the acquiescence in, and the adoption of, the new system. In the congress of 1789, resolutions proposing the amendments for the action of the states were passed, — the preamble setting forth that some of the states expressed, when they adopted the constitution, “a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added;” and that “such clauses would tend to increase public confidence, and thereby help to the beneficent ends in view.” The Grand Result of the Movement may be stated thus: The charge that consolidation, or subordinating the states, was in the original instrument, was disproved. To make assurance doubly sure, that the government was to be always an agency of, and subordinate to, the states; to complete the harnessing and utilizing of the individual and collective personnel of the government; to emphasize their subjection to the law, and their inability to act without express and written warrant; and finally, to make coercion of the states, by their own subjects and agency, forever impossible, they — the said states — amended the constitution within the first few years of its history, as follows — thus putting the people’s seal of reprobation on, and forever preventing, all legislative, military, and judicial forms of coercion of commonwealths: — Amendment IX. provides, that the enumeration in 379 FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; Amendment X., that the powers not delegated to the united states, or prohibited therein to the states, are reserved to the states or people;1 and Amendment XI, that there shall be no federal judicial coercion of a state at the suit of a citizen of any other state. [Please refer to Amendments IX., X., and XI] It is obvious that Amendment X, alone, in declaring that “all powers not delegated to the united states, are reserved,” etc., shows that the several states that delegated must be now absolutely sovereign; that they collectively are the sole recipients and trustees of the powers delegated by the individual states; and finally, that the whole grand federal polity rests solely on sacred international faith — the highest political sanction that is earthly and human; as well as the most likely to endure — if men have the right and capacity for self-organization and self-government. In closing this point, then, I beg leave to repeat, that the fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. Q. E. D. 1 An important part of the perverting interpretation I am exposing, is that which tikes hold of the constitution with its profane hands, right at this point, and says that the powers not delegated are reserved to the nation — as if the thirteen organizations of people could severally ratify and delegate (as all the sacred records unequivocally say they did) and then and there, a nation of people, comprising the said “thirteen,” could ”retain” and ”reserve” those powers of the said states which they, the said states, did not delegate. Of course this is intended as a deception, or it is a gross mistake. Referring to Appendix E for the original forms of the 10th Amendment, to show what the meaning and intent of the people was; what they supposed they were declaring; and what common sense teaches they did declare; I will state, as the result of my investigation and thought, that the conclusion of the said amendment, means as if it read — reserved to the state governments respectively, or to the people of the states, who delegate the powers which are not reserved. See the proposition of Massachusetts, on which all the subsequently ratifying states acted, a few paragraphs above. - - - - - 380 CHAPTER III. USURPATIONS TO BE TREATED AS NULLITIES. POINT III.—Federal acts, outside of delegated powers, were to be treated as nullities, and — if attempted to be enforced — resisted as usurpations. Said Hamilton : “The laws of congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” [II. Ell. Deb. 362.] Said Judge Parsons, “the celebrated chief justice,” as Judge Story calls him: “An increase of power by usurpation is clearly a violation of the federal constitution.” Again he said: “ An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law.” And furthermore he said: the oath to support the constitution “obliges the officers of the several states” to oppose all such acts. And this great jurist and statesman contemplated opposition by arms, if necessary. [Ibid. 94.] Said Judge Iredell, afterwards supreme judge of the united states: “If congress, under pretence of executing one power, usurp another, they will violate the constitution;” and he further asserted that “a law of congress, not consistent with the constitution,” would “not be binding on the people.” [IV. Ibid. 179.] Massachusetts, as usual, caps the climax — she and Connecticut and Rhode Island having, in 1814 — as sovereigns — declared that “acts of congress, in violation of the constitution, are absolutely void.” From this doctrine there was no dissent among the fathers and the states, so that further quotations are not needed, though many pages might be given. Like any other agent, the moment it gets outside of its procuration on reserved ground, the federal government becomes a wrong-doer and trespasser. And, furthermore, it — being under oath — becomes perjured and deeply criminal. Hence, if there be no law for its restraint, it must be repelled vi et armis. And, indeed, Judge Parsons spoke of the resistance to be offered by the states as war! [II. Ell. Deb. 94.] It is well to observe that in self-government, every citizen, official or private, has legal and political, as well as moral, duties, which he - - - - - 381 USURPATIONS TO BE TREATED AS NULLITIES. must personally perform. His judgment and his conscience must decide each and every case presented for his action. His responsibility is individual here, just as much as it is in the hereafter. President Jefferson was right in his letter to the district attorney of New York, dated November 1, 1801, where he said: “I shall treat the sedition law as a nullity, wherever it comes in the way of my functions;” and President Jackson was right in saying, he had sworn to obey the constitution as he understood it, and that where a sworn or other duty was to be done, his judgment and conscience were to be his guide — precedents only influencing his mind according to their character, weight, and applicability. And this was President Johnson’s position, as discussed in his impeachment, that every official, and every citizen, has the right to refuse to obey any and every law, subject only to the danger of judgment and costs being given against him. And when a constitutional question is involved, it sometimes becomes a sacred duty to resist with lawful means, and — in extreme cases — by violence, especially in these times, when fraud and force are vitally attacking our most cherished institutions. With peculiar cogency, Webster’s words close the argument: “the constitution, to preserve itself,” “lays its hand on individual conscience and individual duty.” And the lofty phrase of the hero Jackson sounds in unison : “I swore to obey and protect the constitution as I [and not as others] understand it!” The responsibility for the God-given right of self-government being used correctly, is in individuals, and they must resist, either personally or collectively, as need may be. In government, they only act in the latter capacity; but they have all power, and theirs is the ultima ratio. This same conscience, and the same instinct of self-preservation, must be the prompters and guides, in either personal or social action. I conclude, then, that federal acts outside of delegated powers were to be treated as nullities, and —if attempted to be enforced — resisted as usurpations. Q. E. D. - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-26   0:14:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#14) Obvious enough when it was said and written. Hardly. ....are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Fundamental Principles. — I. The people are the states,....." I trust you note that the language of the Consitution clearly makes a distinction bewteen the State and the people. It clearly holds the two entitites as being separate and distinct from each other. To assertain what the authors meant by this language is a matter of construction based on assumptions that cannot be verified as absolute fact. For example, can you tell me what the Consitution means by the word person? I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen. I cghallenge you to do the same for person. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-26   16:08:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: SOSO (#15) For example, can you tell me what the Consitution means by the word person? I certainly can tell you what the Consitution means by the word citizen. I cghallenge you to do the same for person. When they refer to the States, they refer to the political communities of people. If you can tell me what the Constitution means by the word citizen, go ahead and do so. The Fathers and Framers used the term the people in more than one context, and their intended meaning was clear to them. The People. — When the term the people is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. Thus, the people elect delegates to a constitutional con­vention, and determine by their votes whether the com­pleted work of the convention shall or shall not be adopted; the people choose the officers under the constitution, and so on. For these and similar purposes the electors, though constituting but a small minority of the whole body of the community, nevertheless act for all, and, as being for the time the representatives of sover­eignty, they are considered and spoken of as the sovereign people. But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected. In this case, therefore, the right to assemble is preserved to all the people, and not merely to the electors, or to any other class or classes of the people. [Italics in original, boldface added.] Thomas M Cooley, LL.D.; The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America; Boston; Little Brown, and Company; 1880; pages 267-268. nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-26   16:43:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: nolu chan (#20) ....and their intended meaning was clear to them. I guess it sure was. 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. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-26   17:04:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: SOSO (#22) I guess it sure was. 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. Tell me how the consolidated, collective people of the United States ever did anything. The collective people of the United States did not draft or ratify the Constitution. The Union under the Articles of Confederation contained 13 states. After Washington was inaugurated, the new constitutional union was a union of 11 ratifying states. nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-26   21:05:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#27) Tell me how the consolidated, collective people of the United States ever did anything. First, as soon as you tell me the meaning of person in the Constitution. Second, I just proved the contention that people meant the States as you claimed more than once is inaccurate. 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? Third, it must be very tiring going that far you your asses to pull out the nonesense you are trying to peddle. 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. 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. 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. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-26   22:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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   Untrace   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. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   0:37:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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." SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   1:01:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 42. #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. SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27 01:06:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   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 01:16:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 42. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

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