The Civil War (Constitutional Issues)

[James Everett]

In looking at the US Constitution that went into effect in 1789, I noticed an interesting detail.

When we discuss Constitutional Law, we always get back to 'original intent'. In the Preamble, it is mentioned that the proposed document is to form 'a more perfect Union'. The Founders wanted to make the Union that was already established better.

The Articles of Confederation created a Perpetual Union. This is clearly what the Founding Fathers intended to make more perfect.

What does perpetual mean? States that joined that union did not have the legal right to end the perpetuity.

You mentioned the preamble, therefore in the preamble it States.....
"We the people"
If it was a CONstitution of "we the people, then it was not a union of the States, but rather a union of the people, hence the perpetuity of the States indeed with the preamble.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Constitution under which the United States existed was a 'more perfect' form of the original Union. If the United States existed, it existed with a perpetual Union.

 

[James Everett]

The Constitution under which the United States existed was a 'more perfect' form of the original Union. If the United States existed, it existed with a perpetual Union.

Here again is where we come to that important question that JAKE refused to answer......
Did the State legislatures ratify that CONstitution or did "we the people" ratify?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did answer it, so stop lying, James.

We the People using the states as our agents ratified the Constitution.

Agit8r and there4eyeM have rebutted your arguments as well.

If a supposed CSA is relying on you, then it's non-existence is forever guaranteed.

 

[James Everett]

I did answer it, so stop lying, James.

We the People using the states as our agents ratified the Constitution.

Agit8r and there4eyeM have rebutted your arguments as well.

If a supposed CSA is relying on you, then it's non-existence is forever guaranteed.

That's not an answer JAKE.
I will put it to you this way....
The people could not ratify the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.
If the State legislatures ratified then there would be a record in each State of that vote, yet it never occurred.
JAKE, you have avoided answering the question and tried to have it both ways: you cannot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You set a standard that is not required.

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

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

You don't have what it takes.

 

[James Everett]

You set a standard that is not required.

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

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

You don't have what it takes.

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

 

[danielpalos]

Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.

 

[James Everett]

Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.

But, again it was the LAW that each States legislature was required to ratify by vote any alteration in the Constitution, which at that time were the Articles of Confederation, to do otherwise was rebellion to the lawful authority of the Constitution. So was the 1787/1789 an illegal and unlawful act of rebellion?
In order to acquire redress, the Articles of confederation must be restored, this is the purpose for the restoration of our 1861 Confederacy so that it may be used as a legal means to return to the Articles via the legal amendment process.
All of this May be found at CSAgov.org

 

[danielpalos]

Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.

But, again it was the LAW that each States legislature was required to ratify by vote any alteration in the Constitution, which at that time were the Articles of Confederation, to do otherwise was rebellion to the lawful authority of the Constitution. So was the 1787/1789 an illegal and unlawful act of rebellion?
In order to acquire redress, the Articles of confederation must be restored, this is the purpose for the restoration of our 1861 Confederacy so that it may be used as a legal means to return to the Articles via the legal amendment process.
All of this May be found at CSAgov.org

Article 7 covers it: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

 

[James Everett]

Ratification of our new fangled federal Constitution completes the expiry of the US under the Articles.

But, again it was the LAW that each States legislature was required to ratify by vote any alteration in the Constitution, which at that time were the Articles of Confederation, to do otherwise was rebellion to the lawful authority of the Constitution. So was the 1787/1789 an illegal and unlawful act of rebellion?
In order to acquire redress, the Articles of confederation must be restored, this is the purpose for the restoration of our 1861 Confederacy so that it may be used as a legal means to return to the Articles via the legal amendment process.
All of this May be found at CSAgov.org

Article 7 covers it: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Not hardly.
The Articles of Confederation were in force at that time.......
Article XIII States....
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
What you are quoting is Article VII from the 1787/1789 CONstitution, which was NOT a legal alteration of the Lawful authority of the 1781 Constitution, because such an alteration as calling for ratification of the conventions of nine States was a violation of Article XIII Of the existing Constitution which required the Confirmation of every States legislature.
Before an alteration calling for only the conventions of nine States to ratify, NOT even one jot or one tittle could be altered until EVER STATE LEGISLATURE RATIFIED THE ALTERATION OF ONE LETTER, LET ALONE CHANGING THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF ALTERING THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE.
It is a little difficult for one to state that secession was an illegal and unlawful act, when no law was established to make secession unlawful or illegal, YET THE 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was established BY A COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL ACT, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONS ARTICLE XIII .

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[James Everett]

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Article 6 claims otherwise.

 

[James Everett]

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

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

Article 6 claims otherwise.

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

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

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

 

[there4eyeM]

Even if the 'new' Constitution were to be considered not ratified, the original Articles of Confederation, forming a perpetual Union, would remain in place. There would be no provision for legal separation.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

Article 6 claims otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an example from just Article 6:

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

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

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

 

[James Everett]

Even if the 'new' Constitution were to be considered not ratified, the original Articles of Confederation, forming a perpetual Union, would remain in place. There would be no provision for legal separation.

That is the purpose of the restoration effort. The whole purpose is to return to the Articles of Confederation under a the federal system that does not exist under your current government.
One cannot argue that the secession's of the Southern Confederate States was an illegal act using a constitution that was illegally ratified (Hence null and void) and that illegal CONstitution did NOT nor does not contain a law against secession, and then claim that the union is perpetual using a constitution that was violated and claimed to be replaced with a new illegally ratified CONstitution that was no longer in force through an illegal act.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is meant by "your constitution"?

 

[danielpalos]

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