Bio not provided
@ThePainefulTruth I plan on reading your link. Been a busy few days - I plan on trying to sort through your last post too. I see you were very happily excited as you wrote it. :) (I do it too - tends to create some harder to read posts). I'll figure it out. I might have a few criticisms, but it's obvious you are doing research and trying to reason things through.
2 years ago on Jefferson and Madison vs "Staff Writer"
@ThePainefulTruth LOL. That's a minor error. It's a common one too. :p No need to apologize for trivial ones since this forum doesn't allow edits.
@ThePainefulTruth Found it! (copy/paste below from Google). "[PDF] Chisholm v. Georgia - The Scholarly Commons - Georgetown ...scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...fac...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat by RE Barnett - 2007 - Cited by 22 - Related articles Chisholm v. Georgia and Popular Sovereignty*. Inaugural Address as Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory. Georgetown University Law Center,"
Link is: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=fac_lectures
I wish these forums had an "edit" function"
@ThePainefulTruth Thank you. I'll evaluate it. I hadn't even been aware of this issue until quite recently (with regard to the justice's remarks) when I found an article by a respected law professor concerning Chisholm v. Georgia. I'll try to find the link to the PDF again...
...crap. This might be a while. I can't even find the file on my drive yet and I'm sure I downloaded it. :(
@ThePainefulTruth My assertion that you were a troll was bit premature. While it is a poor excuse for it it was very late after a long day. You are deserving of apology with regards to that.
Your writing style has improved dramatically.
But... "The burden of proof lies with the accuser". You can't assume that the other party should accept your authority in any debate or discussion. When you declare the other party's statements are in error it is your responsibility to demonstrate their fallacy. When you do so, your assertion is a criticism - you give the other person or observers a basis to measure or text your assertions (a critique) - and you demonstrate personal accountability. To do otherwise is to simply accuse.
Now for another point. I'm a natural-born U.S. citizen. I took my oath under Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution to support it. Additionally, the specific variation of that oath was the Executive version as defined under Article II of the Constitution, and I did so in the process of becoming a sworn Federal officer as defined under Section 2 of that same article. I also pledged to sacrifice my life and personal freedom in the process to support my duties under that oath. As part of that process I knew it was my responsibility to work to understand the nature of what I swore to defend in order to recognize the scope of my duties and I have been doing so in excess of 30 years. I have also worked professorially as a compliance and certification specialist in the area of U.S. and international law. I have been subject to advanced testing and evaluation as far as my intellectual and verbal capacities as well as being subject to personality inventory and assessment - I have not been found wanting. To reveal further detail would risk the appearance of arrogance. It is sufficient to assert that to effectively discredit me usually requires substantial proof and argument and not grave, speculative, insults and attacks on my heritage, education, political and social beliefs, or character.
@ThePainefulTruth @garvan Again the ad hominems. The current evidence suggests an internet troll. The general advice on the internet is to "Don't feed the trolls. They become starved and go away". That dictum will be applied here.
@ThePainefulTruth Yet more ad hominem.
@ThePainefulTruth @jazznut50 @gypsynovus
The rebuttal is quite ad hominem. Rather than attacking the substance of the argument it attempts to attack the character of the person. While the temptation to reveal bone fides is tempting under the circumstances it would be counterproductive.
See previous response about usage of language and accepted patterns for creating emphasis. There are several claims of error in the previous reply but no effort to support such. This represents a lack of accountability as there is no basis of measure to test the truthfulness of the assertions. By definition such are accusatory; not critical responses to anything that they refer to. It is recommended that the poster apply the linguistic principles explained in "Strunk& White's Elements of Style". This book is found in paperback in most major bookstores; usually under $5.00 USD.
@ThePainefulTruth The purpose of language is to communicate; not confuse. There are well established linguistic devices that exist to "punch up" the meaning of a sentence or word. Some of these are specific to the typography of the internet. While creating alternative techniques to improve that emphasis is neither unheard of or improper, there must be a framework for a reader of at least average intelligence to determine the intent of such usage from the context; to do otherwise is simply hubris.
An example from your posting that I'm replying to is the reference to the "Average reader". Words capitalized on the initial letter in the English language (whichever variant) indicate a proper noun. If the letters are all capitalized, they replace the use of italics (which are used for emphasis). In this instance, if the word "average" was to be emphasized then the course of action would have been to use all capitals for that word. That creates an immediate signal of "this is important". To misuse that tends to signal to the reader that the person is either uneducated or in a confused mental state. That may not be the intent, but that is the effect. They will tend to treat such artifice as random noise or disregard the poster entirely. Most readers will excuse the occasional typographic error and read past them, but to continue to do so simply creates frustration within the target audience.
Remove the excess capitalization and avoid the pattern of address when addressing people that causes them to feel that they are being "talked down to". Removing first and second person references and avoid ad hominems. It is no accident that this entire reply (other that the automatic identification created by the reply function of this forum) up until this point avoids the usage of "I", "you", "me", "your", your name or handle, or my own. The effect is a more respectful tone that focuses on behavior and not person.
@James Erfurth I have read the "Law of Nations" in part. It has some value. I don't know if you can Kindle it though. :( But it is online. I can find a good link.
Forums in political sites (or religious ones!) can get pretty inflammatory. Just don't let anything get under your skin and just respond in a calm, measured manner. Think of the verse in Romans about "trading good for evil" and you will go far. Also studying debate and the nature of logical fallacy. This is not only good for your career, but is an excellent way to understand the concepts so you can teach your children how to be better critical thinkers - probably one of the best gifts you can give them - how to think for themselves and recognize bullshit! :) Then keep to sites like this and use them to develop and practice your new-found skills.
@jazznut50 @ThePainefulTruth @gypsynovus
You might consider what you are implying with that phrase. When you use it you stating "I have decided a man must act, speak, and value a certain in a certain way. Ignoring your actual biology and focusing on your conduct I'm declaring you are not being a man - start acting the way I have decided you should act or you are not a man". Do you catch the arrogance? If you mean to say to a person to be more assertive and take personal responsibility for their actions and beliefs - in short, be more adult - then that is what should be said. Gender has nothing to do with it. I do understand your disdain for politically correct speech - some it gets over the top and evasive with innuendo - I don't defy it. I just use it for humorous intent :)
Also, just in case you didn't get my reference to that fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
@jazznut50 @James Erfurth There is no formal "Law of Nations" for any nation to sign into. The only thing that exists is a collection of international agreements that various nations may, or may not, agree with. It involves some generally accepted principles and common customs, but nothing is codified, nor is there any mechanism of enforcement beyond the desire of a nation to maintain good will with other nations. The documents suggested are of good historic value and DO give insight into what the Founders intended and meant with the actual codified law, but they are not law themselves - just advisory.
@Bob Greenslade Bob, the original grant of Federal power came from the people of the United States and not the States themselves. I don't know if modifies your explanation to any significant degree, but it worth noting and considering. The State governments may only nullify if they are working within the framework of the United States Constitution and acting in its support, not simply because they believe it violates their own sovereignty.
@garvan Justice Scalia apparently ignores the writings of the opinion of the justices in the very first U.S. Supreme Court in Chisolm v. Georgia (1793). In fact he's been called on this in the Harvard Law Review (I'll dig up the link to the PDF article later if you want).
The Eleventh Amendment was an angry reaction by the State governments to that ruling. Just to give you more of a grasp of that ruling and the knowledge of that court about Constitutional principles, one of them was a member of the Constitutional Convention that wrote it. What was that case about? A private citizen loaned the State of Georgia money to help in the fight against the British during the American Revolution. Georgia refused to pay. He died. His estate sued. The State of Georgia refused to show up to court, saying that the Supreme Court had no authority in the case and that the State of Georgia had "sovereign immunity" against any lawsuit - that the Government of Georgia was that sovereign and was not answerable to United States citizen for breach of trust unless they decided to allow it. What did the United States Supreme Court rule? 1) That the people of the United States were this nation's sovereign. 2) That Georgia had to pay. :) That case is well worth reading. The Eleventh Amendment only took away the standing of the Supreme Court in certain cases. That's all the language says. It says NOTHING about sovereignty of the States, the Federal government, or of any person. What some jurists have done is try to argue that it nullified the entire previous Supreme Court ruling and not just the part regarding the ability of the Supreme Court to preside in that type of case. The idea of U.S. citizens not being subjects of the State or Federal governments has been blocked even though that's exactly what the Founding Fathers have written was one of the main ideas of our nation and its form of government. The State governments NEVER had full sovereignty either under the Articles of Confederation or under the United States Constitution.
@jazznut50 @ThePainefulTruth @gypsynovus Thank you for that grammatical correction; it's greatly appreciated.
I know what you mean about the "new man". But that particular expression is just a particularly insulting form of the "True Scotsman" argument. It's just an ad hominem attack. The fact you were able to catch my mistake leads me to believe you are educated enough to recognize the logical fallacies I just named.
@jazznut50 @ThePainefulTruth @James Erfurth Thank you. Reading his replies was painful.
What school systems are they teaching this crappy method of communication? I suspect these are systems that are concerned about kids getting into and successfully completing college. No professor I ever had would have accepted this kind of crap.
@ThePainefulTruth @gypsynovus How about learning proper usage of capitalization, grammar, and spelling? The fact that you used a arrogant phrase like "Man up" is huge red flag in its own right.
@CFrancisHabeck @WilliamSchooler @egbegb Yes, that came out MUCH better!
2 years ago on Dangerous Dicta
@CFrancisHabeck You hit the nail on the head. The idea of "gun control" as a preventative measure is really a fallacy. My article actually was based on a punitive measure that depended on due process. You can only react to circumstances as they appear or find a way to deal with the consequences. Effective prevention require the ability to successfully and consistently predict the future - an ability we obviously lack. The Law of Relativity as described by Galileo and the Law of Indeterminacy (several, Quantum Mechanics) see to that incapacitance.
@WilliamSchooler @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb
Your frustration is understandable. It's the exact type of frustration that led to the Declaration of Independence in the first place. As for why we had the Articles of Confederation and later a Constitution we did not want to be like the country we were calling it quits from who had no definite set of rules that everyone could inspect and understand. Not for the people, not for the government. Actually there WAS and IS the Magna Carta but that only reduced the power of the monarchy and allowed popular control in the first place. But it kept the nobility entrenched to the detriment of the general population.
Legal documents like the U.S. Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Articles of Confederation, etc. try to create a common frame of reference or try to get everyone "on the same page". Things like this are used quite heavily. Our modern technologies depend on such in the interests of common functionality and safety (I've been an international product certification engineer). Our lives often literally depend on such.
And during the ratification of the Constitution it was the courts and/or the PEOPLE who were supposed to decide the meaning of laws. You are quite right WE are supposed to decide. We are supposed to be the nation's sovereigns. We've substantially lost that.
@CFrancisHabeck @egbegb They did say so, and in some of the most concise language possible. I did note that they could have used better, more plain, language, but the 13th Article of Amendment was more directed at legislatures and courts than the average person and was written accordingly.
I didn't assume the meanings. I was able to derive the correct one from the context. If you look in your typical dictionary many words have several definitions, some of them exclusive. When you use one of those words to you have to indicate which meaning you intend by something like "(the definition of this word being used is 3(b) from Funk & Wagnell's New Collegiate Dictionary"? Of course not. You determine which meaning by what other words are being used with it. English is a very context based language which often gives adults who are learning it the first time difficulties. Many other languages DO require such spelling out. They often also have much smaller vocabularies. Spanish is one example. I've had speakers of that language wind up preferring English because it was much more concise. Also in English we not only choose words based on their denotation, but their connotation as well. Additionally, for stylistic reasons, we compose sentences so that we don't repeat the same word and often resort to synonyms - at least professional writers in the language do. I've lucked out personally. I have a much larger than average vocabulary, and a naturally developed, graduate level, reading ability (based on standard tests). As you pointed out in your own article we have really been failing our children and ourselves with our poor educational system.
By the way your article is a very good start. You've put some real though and work into it. I'll try to give it a critical review in my own blog when I can but I'm a bit loaded down with client work that I've been neglecting too long. Thanks for taking my advice about how to publish it if that's what prompted you to do so.
@egbegb @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
That sounds like it might be a start to a good rebuttal. I have yet to read the article you reference, so I'm not in a position to comment further. I'm still building up a lengthy rebuttal in my blog for the "Citizenship" link that was posted here earlier (been working on it since late last night!)
Edit: I've just started skimming it. *sigh* @CFrancisHabeck actually has some good points but he falls into the same errors as the other article - and he has a bunch of strange characters in his blog post. It looks like he blindly copied and pasted from a Microsoft Word or similar document into his blog. How do you fix that? You do "Save As" and save the file as plain text without formatting or special characters and copy/paste from that. I guess I'll tackle it next...
I'll get your article in a moment. I'm still in the middle of another lengthy analysis right now. But...
Language of the 13th Amendment (it's small, so quoting it in its entirety is trivial):
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Try this one from the United States Supreme Court:“The term 'United States' may be used in any of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united under the Constitution.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652(1945)
In this case, Congress intended with the language of the 13th that it apply not only to the United States as a whole, but within the several States of the United States as well. The plural form was necessary here for conciseness. It still applies in the collective sense as well. There was no 14th Amendment yet to extend the protections to the state level implicitly, so this sort of verbal gymnastics was required.
Therefore it would have NOT been the same with the 13th as the 14th. Different purpose, different language. There is nothing to support the argument that they both required the same language.Could they have used better language? Probably. But the courts of the United States, both at the State and Federal level haven't had any problems interpreting it, and they've been quite consistent when they've done so. There is this funny concept called "context" for the meaning of words, especially if they might have several definitions. The legal principle? "Words are known by the company they keep" (I forget the Latin). In the case of the 13th Amendment Congress needed the plural, collective meaning of "United States" and used the plural qualifier "their jurisdiction". In the 14th Amendment, Congress needed the singular meaning and used the singular qualifier "the jurisdiction".
The people who wrote the Constitution and the several Articles of Amendment knew exactly what they were referring to when they wrote them.
@Cogitor @CFrancisHabeck U.S. citizenship is vital, but our Federal government has abused its position with regards to that. The Dred Scott case you find SCOTUS describing the nature of that citizenship and its value at length (one of the better parts of that case).
You will have to give me examples of that word usage in the U.S. Code. Last I knew "within" meant anywhere within the borders of the United States and areas subject to its authority, and "without" meant the opposite unless it was the part of the Code specifically targeting the D.C. area (which does have a special status under the Constitution).
There are no "Federal state governments". There might be Federal enclaves within a state subject only to Federal authority unless state officials are invited, but that's as far as that goes. And under Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Federal government has full authority to enforce Federal laws and protections (in combination with the necessary and proper clause). But unless Federal officers are acting to enforce national law they have no jurisdiction outside of Federal territory. The sheriffs can always tell them to leave in those instances. That's part of our Tenth Amendment protections. :)
But, sadly, you are right. Americans are VERY ignorant of our Constitutions and laws. Even though @CFrancisHabeck and I have our differences, he's still got more sense of our laws than the average citizen and is willing to do his homework and share his results.
@Cogitor Actually the 17th Amendment was an attempt to solve a real problem of Senate corruption. Rather than an outright repeal it should be modified to allow both popular and state legislative appointments to the Senate. It would double the number of Senators, but it would increase the overall accountability of the Senate and kill some political excess (hopefully!). The 14th Amendment is VERY necessary. It has a couple of warts, but it's still actually protecting our rights. It constantly comes up in Federal and state cases. The 16th Amendment was always crap and violates popular sovereignty - making it void from the outset, but it's getting that sovereignty fully recognized again that is the best solution to that one.
"This is why we are in trouble, we do not want to look at the overall effect of laws over time. The SCOTUS has made a distinction between a State "citizen of the United States" and a federal "citizen of the United States".
Really? Where? Cite? Link to case law?
A federal citizens has no rights or privileges except those granted TO them by Congress (SCOTUS)"
Really? Cite? Link to case law? Amazing. I guess the the Bill of Rights is just a figment of our collective imagination or the usage of the word "right" frequently used in those Articles of Amendment were just an inside joke.
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855) is a CALIFORNIA case. And the context you give might have been an argument by one of the case principles and not the justices without having any further context. Given that it blatantly ignores the existence of the 14th Article of Amendment that had been long ratified and explicitly identified the existence of a common United States citizenship, and also blatantly ignored the very preamble of the U.S. Constitution, I suspect this case did not set any precedent that was sustained.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). Good choice here. And the ruling directly points out the dual citizenship U.S. citizens are born with. Dual, and even more citizenships are quite commonplace in the U.S. and internationally, and have been that way for longer than the U.S. has existed. (I recognize this as a SCOTUS case and it's an often cited one).
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
Interesting case, but NOT SCOTUS again. It's a good case because of the situations where a U.S. citizen is born in a territory rather than a state of the United State Puerto Rico is a good example of this.
@CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 "Could it be because the rules..." Huh? I'm going to assume you meant "ruled".
No. Because they understood the Constitution and it's basis, especially since one of the Justices was one of its writers! They sincerely believed in popular sovereignty and declared it in their first Constitutional case. Obviously they didn't have to guess what their predecessors meant - they didn't have any.
Now that really WAS ad hominem as it was direct at me personally. ("ad hominem" - "to the man").I accept SCOTUS's authority but not blindly. I may not LIKE their decisions sometimes, but when I DO criticize one of their decisions I'm prepared to be accountable for those criticisms
"The People of the States, through their State representatives, created the Constitution. Their purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation which had an extremely weak federal gevernment."
Mostly correct. But interstate commerce was on their agenda. It's part of the historic documents discussing the purpose of the Convention. That was one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were considered so weak because of interstate trade issues.
Actually the Constitution had quite a few restrictions on the states. They are not full sovereign governments. A full sovereign government can enter treaties with other sovereigns, make war, raise armies, decide on their own currency, regulate commerce across their borders and collect revenue from that commerce, decide on their own form of government, and are able to determine what legal actions by other nations they may recognize. Try reading Article I, Section 10 and Article IV of the United States Constitution sometime. In fact much of Article I, Section 10 comes from the Articles of Confederation! That's right - the several states have NEVER been fully independent, sovereigns.
And in the case of Illinois, gun rights WERE extended, at least the ones acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution. The fact that those rights really existed is pretty moot if the state and municipalities were actively trying to suppress them as they were.
Several free states granting SOME of their authority? Try reading Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution sometime. You might also reread the Preamble. "We the people..." not "We the people of the the following states". Nor did it read "We, the States..." The Constitution created a single free nation and the several states agreed to be part of that nation as subject states.
And why don't you just post your article on one of the many free blogs out there? You know, allow public review and criticism? Accountability? Instead of hijacking the topic of another forum and demanding peoples' private email addresses?
Primer on reality? Sounds like arrogant hubris already.
@CFrancisHabeck @AndrewJackson1 Not all state constitutions conferred the same rights. And the state and Federal governments have both acted to ignore the sovereignty of the people.Here are the first four clauses of my own state's constitution (from the Article 1, my state's bill of rights):"Section 1. Source of political power—origin, basis and aim of government.—That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all governmentof right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
Section 2. Promotion of general welfare—natural rights of persons—equalityunder the law—purpose of government.—That all constitutional government isintended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a naturalright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of theirown industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights andopportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal officeof government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in itschief design.
Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form ofgovernment.—That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive rightto regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish theirconstitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to theirsafety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution ofthe United States.Source:
Section 4. Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments toConstitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state,subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties ofthe people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belongingto the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people."
Sounds nice, right? In fact much of it follows the U.S. Constitution's bill of rights - almost! That "almost" part was with regard to double jeopardy and a few other protection clauses. The U.S. Supreme Court wound up ruling those sections in Missouri's constitution violated the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights with regards to, among other things, double jeopardy. That was as late as 1999! (and the stuff they ruled on was pretty nasty).
State governments and other lower governments have been magnets for petty tyrants and those wanting to rob their fellow citizens of their essential liberties. The Feds are a magnet too, but it's much more difficult and slower a target for the corrupt. Despite some criticisms, the 17th Amendment was targeting that very creep into the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately it also has been the basis of the Fed getting too much power against the states..
@egbegb @CFrancisHabeck It was several cases - I can look them up, but it will take hours. The most recent is the one where gun rights were extended to the state level - one of the points brought up in this very article. The Constitution was mostly created to regulate governments (state and Federal) and trade - but not citizens. The Federal government can't tell you how much to pay, and neither can the state, but they BOTH can tell the lawn care specialist what they can charge as long as he is operating as a business. Despite a recent SCOTUS ruling, a business is NOT a person, and certainly not a citizen.
And, no, it did not list the enumerated powers of the states. It was the usage of the "Equal Protection" clause that did it (mostly). And if you read the Bill of Rights you will see one of the Amendments states that just because a right isn't enumerated that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and the people of the United States be denied that right just because it isn't listed. 9th Amendment. This "First 8" bullshit is just that - bullshit. There are TEN amendments to the Bill of Rights. This State vs Federal citizenship stuff being tossed about is very dangerous. Virginia used to dictate peoples' faith - you want that back? The Federal government is our source of common rights and protections of law. And its authority begins with Article VI of the Constitution. The Founders greatly feared the power of BOTH state and Federal Governments. Try reading Article I, section 10 sometime and see all the restrictions placed on state governments.
@calinb7 @Don Duncan Agreed.
@Don Duncan @CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 A "more perfect union" is what the writers of the Constitution believed. Personally I think we would have been better off if Jefferson had been part of that process, but he was our ambassador to France at the time, but he was for it at the start. He later became concerned about the lack of protections and his actions contributed to the Bill of Rights. If you read up on Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) you will find the idea of "popular sovereignty" echoed by the majority of the Supreme Court - including one of the main writers of the Constitution. The idea was the people of the United States were all to be separate and equal sovereigns abdication only such authority as was needed to create a common nation. In other words, not even 13 yokes, but thousands :) Early Israel was essentially the same idea until they got stupid and abdicated all of their power to a single king. (The "tribes" were nation-states just like U.S. states - and they still considered themselves a single nation).
@CFrancisHabeck @egbegb "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" dealt with the issue of foreign nationals. The wording you take out of context is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." The phrase "United States" in this context is referencing "United States" as a singular unit - a single nation - the usage of the singular term in that context. And that leads me to the crux of the problem - I don't think you grasp the idea of "context". Words in the English language often have multiple meanings, but those meanings only appear within a specific context. Look at the dictionary definition of a word like "quiet" sometime. And in law, there is a phrase that goes "Words are known by the company they keep" (actually the more arrogant ones use a Latin phrase, but the translation is the same). A perfect example of this is the usage of the word "people". Prefaced with the definite article "the" in Constitution it means the citizens of the United States. And, legally, after the ratification and acceptance of the Declaration of Independence, there were no states or colonies. The charters that created those entities were void. At that moment there was only one people who later to chose to carve themselves out new governments from the remains of the old colonies. Those people held themselves as sovereigns of those political units and after lengthy persuasion agreed to create a larger, more united, nation. The Federal government has been pulling the crap you've been complaining about long before the 14th Amendment, Social Security or anything else you've been complaining about. The state governments actually have been the worst violators, and have been even before the ink on the Constitution was dry. Unfortunately the same slime that started at the state level made it into the Federal level.
@egbegb @CFrancisHabeck The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution extended the Bill of Rights to the States - a lot of the protections we enjoy with regards to the BoR at the state level are the result of that. the 14th has its own problems, but that is one of its benefits.
@Cogitor Sorry, I confused you some with another writer (I was a bit tired - and somewhat cranky! :p)
This site identifies something like 35 enumerated powers for Congress and is able to give specific references for them. Some of those enumerated powers directly give control of the Federal government over state actions i.e. the "full faith and credit" and "republican government" clauses for a small sample. What is being abused is the Commerce Clause. That clause has been wrongly extended to the actions of private citizens and their private property. I'm actually with people here on the idea that the government is out of control and has greatly exceeded its authority, but it get's my hackles up when they use poor argumentation. It makes it difficult to bring issues to court and increases the odds of certain topics being treated as "frivolous".
The jurisdictional issue over U.S. citizens you mention is a two-edged sword because it also enables the government to act to protect them wherever they are as well. Unfortunately our Federal and state governments have worked hard to water down the idea of popular sovereignty and has led to the problems you mention.
@onetenther @CFrancisHabeck Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Here's a quick reference on the P&R problem of the 14th Ad.
Basically SCOTUS gutted that clause in the first 14th Ad. case it heard. There are more detailed articles on this, but for the moment P&R is something we lost. It's the only decision I know of that the justices who decided on it publicly denounced their own ruling. It's one of the things that has left the Constitution crippled.
@CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 I assume nothing - that's poor analysis . I read the decision. I follow the Court's reasoning. I fact check. I compare against previous decisions and examine the materials referenced. - the majority of the time I find the Court has made good decisions. And if you check the history of the Slaughterhouse cases you will find the justices of the Supreme Court afterwards admitting they thought that they decided wrongly on the matter but were helpless to correct it unless somehow a new case could be brought to them. "Dred Scott" is considered a bad decision widely. Why? Because the court first stated that they had no standing in the case and then made a decision anyways about the original question! O_o. "Arver vs. The United States" that I've mentioned previously here involves conscription. The Supreme Court in that case didn't even use the Constitution for their final decision - they used the writings of a political philosopher who believed in a monarchy as the ideal form of government for a nation. Essentially they violated their oath of office. Normally it would have been grounds for their removal from office, but since they were giving the Federal government extra-Constitutional authority, Congress didn't act.
I have reason to believe you are on the right track but you are using poor arguments. You come off sounding like a flake. You are rightfully angry about the situation, but that emotion can kill logical analysis.
Where do you start? At the beginning. In Chisolm, the second justice to speak - one of the writers of the Constitution - begins with saying our nation was a new nation with no legal precedents yet (which are the basis of common law) and as a consequence he would confine himself to the only available legal reference - the Constitution. What did he and the other justices to speak use (among other items)? The Preamble "We, the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". It does not begin "We, the People of Rhode Island, Virginia, Delaware, New York, ..." The idea of the time was that the people of the United States had a greater citizenship that transcended their state citizenships Did you miss that part "in order to form a more perfect union?" .
@Cogitor The Blackmer case involved some idiot in the Teapot Dome scandal. He was in contempt of court. What SCOTUS did was affirm the 6th Article of Amendment which grants the power to compel witnesses. There is some crappy dicta by the Chief Justice, about "duties of citizens" in that case, but it was only dicta. The Supreme Court around this time was pretty strongly pro-government and treated U.S. citizens as only subjects of the United States.
We are BORN into the jurisdiction unless you are naturalized citizen. No forms required. :) (Unless you are naturalized).14th Amendment (the first paragraph):Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part means people who were not already subject to a foreign power. As I think of it when I read this, it means that children born to illegal immigrants AREN'T automatically citizens! This conversation HAS been fruitful. :)
And Congress has ALWAYS had the power to naturalize ANYONE as a citizen of the United States. That power is granted directly in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
The only change to the definition of U.S. citizenship caused by the 14th Article of Amendment was to EXPAND it - it gave blacks citizenship (among other people). It was a blanket naturalization - well within the Constitutional powers of Congress.
And one of the things holding back the government is indeed our guns - those of private citizens - and those of our military. Ask the Promise Keepers about that.
@Cogitor @calinb7 The Congress the has power to make any necessary and proper law to carry out it's duties... and not just in Washington D.C.
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Why don't you take the time to read the rest of the "forgoing powers" in Article I, Section 8, and not focus on solely on the clause previous to the "necessary and proper clause".
The Constitution gives citizenship based on BIRTH, not on domicile. There is not one word about "domiciles" in the Constitution. It speaks of the "People" or the "People of the United States". Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)
I'd love to evaluate your article. I suspect I won't be kind to it, but at least you've taken the time to research some case law. I don't want to give out my person email address here. I'll send you a request to your (ugh!) hotmail account.
@calinb7 @CFrancisHabeck Have you ever read those decisions? At length? You will find that often those splits have nothing to do with precise word meaning, but usually more to do with personal beliefs and concerns. And, yes, I do know the difference between precision and accuracy. And I've seen some horrible crap come out of the Supreme Court BECAUSE they ignored precedent and ignored plain language. "Arver" springs to mind... That one still makes me want to throw up. Probably our best SCOTUS was the first - it put the people before the government - and they stuck to the existing language. Oh, and that court wisely pointed out that common law was the rulings of American courts based on our fundamental principles and NOT the common law of England.
@CFrancisHabeck Re-read the 14th Amendment please. I'm a supporter of the concept of popular sovereignty as were most of the Founding Fathers and the first Supreme Court of the United states. I'm also quite aware of the history of the 14th Amendment - it's why we have the protections we have now from the Bill of Rights at the STATE level! And not just the first eight Amendments. But kill the flaky stuff please. The phrase " English can be a precise or vague language" ? Words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning. Get some legal training and quit trying to fit very old case law without proper understanding or context into your conspiracy theories.
Like another poster here I got very tired of arguing the issue on various forums. After hearing about people demanding "sensible gun control" for the last time, I actually created a blog post on it. I'm adding the link here. It has technical issues but I'm largely happy with it. I actually map out a pattern for "gun control" legislation in it. I also expand the basis of gun rights to more than the 2nd Article of Amendment.
Link here: http://diaryofabasketcaseprogrammer.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-arms-and-gun-control.htmlFeel free to comment respectfully.
@onetenther @Bob Greenslade It's called "badthink" Didn't you read Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four"?
@Cogitor *sigh* Try the U.S. Supreme Court case of Chisolm vs Georgia. That court,and the writers of the Constitution believed in a concept of "Common Sovereignty" , that is, the people of the United States (its citizens by definition) were separate and equal sovereigns of the nation "a government OF the People" literally. That case affirmed that position. Yes, some later courts uncomfortable with that conclusion have watered it down a lot, but it's settled law. It's late and I'm not going into detail about it here. But the person behind that article you link to omits the 14th Article of Amendment (I checked) which makes any person born in the United States a citizen of this nation and also a citizen of the state in which they are born. Yes, the Federal government has drastically exceeded its authority, but it's more likely due to ignorance of the law than malice.