Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We are talking about the Constitution, and you are talking about the Articles. Hint: they are not the same. Truth: the states as our Agents of We the People ratified the Constitution, per Article 7. As long as you are the advocate of the 'CSA', America is safe.JAKE,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.
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.
You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.Article 6 claims otherwise.Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
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.
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.
Articles 6 and 7 of our federal Constitution are all that is needed to transition to a new government:
Here is an example from just Article 6:
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
You just said it....You still haven't convinced me that establishing a new government doesn't automatically, "close the position" on the previous government.Everything that was done since the illegal act in violation of Article XIII is the result of the poison fruit of that illegal act.Article 6 claims otherwise.Not hardly, as I have shewn, such was an illegal and unlawful act in violation of the Constitution.Ratifying our federal Constitution automatically "closed that position" on the Articles of Confederation.
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.
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.
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.
JAKE,We are talking about the Constittuion, and you are talking about the Articles. Hint: they are not the same. Truth: the states as our Agents of We the People ratified the Constitution. As long as you are the advocate of the 'CSA', America is safe.JAKE,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.
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.
As I have stated, the act in which the 1787/1788 CONstitution was ratified was in violation of law, hence illegal. Any act thereafter as a result of the first illegal act is poisoned fruit, thus illegal/spoiled as well.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.
JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
This is why we exist under occupation because two cannot occupy the same space. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is illegally occupying the place of the 1781 legal Constitution.Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.
It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.
Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...What is meant by "your constitution"?
James,JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
A premise without any factual proof other than your imagination.This is why we exist under occupation because two cannot occupy the same space. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is illegally occupying the place of the 1781 legal Constitution.Ratification accomplished the "opening of a new position" on Government that automatically "closed the position" on the previous Government.
It must be that simple simply Because, two Governments cannot occupy the Same place at the same time.
Your voluntary acceptance was granted by the states as our agents of We the People. You may not like it, but your are morally and legally bound by the document.Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...What is meant by "your constitution"?
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.
Again, JAKE, read article XIII of our 1781 Constitution.James,JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
You must provide the proof because the affirmation is yours.
In fact, the Congress, not having to alter by amendment the government, accepted the proposed Constitution and passed it on to the states.
Do you understand the differences of amendment and legislation of ACC?
You seem very weak on this difference.
jAKE,Your voluntary acceptance was granted by the states as our agents of We the People. You may not like it, but your are morally and legally bound by the document.Because, as our Declaration of Independence states.,...What is meant by "your constitution"?
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I do not voluntarily grant my consent to a government and constitution that were put in place via an illegal act. Others do grant voluntary consent to it and the illegal and unlawful act I which it was put in place.
Jake,please stop blathering, you don't know what you are talking about, alteration is amending, legislation is alteration. You are a blithering idiot!James is under the impression that his opinion is evidence. He is suggesting that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles. His suggestion is not proof. He does not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. He cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.
His opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely his opinion, nothing else.
Jake,James, the issue is yours, so nothing to apologize about. You project on to me your lack of maturity and education.
You made a premise that you cannot provide the evidence for. The opposition never has to prove the case for the affirmative. Your are under the impression that your opinion is evidence. You suggest that the Constitution was supposedly amending the Articles without evidence. Your suggestion is not proof. You do not know the difference between amendment and legislation in the Articles. You cannot demonstrate that the sending on of the proposed Constitution to the states for ratification (or not) was illegal.
Your opinion that the passage of the Constitution onto the states was illegal, once again, is merely your opinion, nothing else.
As such you and your premise fail.
Ratification accomplished that process in the analogous and (political) market friendly manner, previously described.JAKE,James is mistaking the process of amending the Articles with the acceptance of the Congress in accepting the proposed document and forwarding it to the several states for ratification. The document was accepted and forwarded. The process was legal, and James continues to be wrong.
You must provide each States legislatures vote in altering even one article, yet such votes were never taken, as the process was ratified not by the Legislatures of every State, but was ratified by the people through delegates elected by the people, not by each States legislature. A. Clear violation of the law.
