Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That's not exactly true. Enumerated powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the People or the State. Perhaps, in this case, it holds, but not for every case. The States have powers the Federal doesn't. Well, that was the way it was set up anyway...
but there is that nagging perpetually unanswered question just who are the "People"?
If I were sitting on the bench right now and the government said you were not the people contemplated in the constitution and you showed no proof that you were I would be FORCED to rule in favor of the government.
Thanks to PH he made it perfectly clear there is a distinction.
I posted that in another thread and here it is again:
quote:
Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence.
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.
The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.
maybe you did not see this but it seems peoples minds shut down when they see something like this that completely torpedoes their traditional idea of "how things are or should be".
Henry clearly notes the distinction. So which "People" are they talking about?
more henry
quote:
LIBERTY OR EMPIRE?
DELIVERED IN THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, JUNE 5, 1788
HAT, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia which relates to this:
"CLAUSE III.—That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution[<- the one we have today] from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I cannot help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever. We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practiced in the House of Commons in England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body cannot continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sirl we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited—an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
oh we got the muskets dont we? Just try and use them for their intended purpose and see what happens to you!
Now, I'm not saying I know more than Patrick Henry or any of the Founding Fathers. However, I do believe it's quite clear.
The Preamble to the US Constitution:quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If you break that down, it's "We the People of the United States" which is also "We the People of the states that are united." Notice the beginning only mentions the "United States" while the ending states the "United States of America." Since the US Constitution had to be ratified by 9 States, to be law of the land. Ratification required delegates elected by the people of the states. So, "We the People, of the United States" were literally the voters of the 13 States in the Union.
And, it had to come from the people. That's where all authorities are derived in the first place. At least, that was how it was supposed to be. We gave up some authority to the State (and also to Local Governments), and then we gave up others, and the States gave up some of the ones we gave to them, to the Federal Government. And, that is why what wasn't enumerated in the Constitution was left to the States or the People. If it had not been ratified, that would have been "We the People" saying, "Yeah, about that... no."
First they did not found anything.
Their charter granted them no authority to restructure the government. That is the main point that PH was talking about.
Next I want to see the referendum records and ballots etc for those "presumed" votes by the people.
I have researched this to see if PH was for real, and they do not exist, there is no way the government can prove they are legitimately "by the people" rather than the kings pals as we are led to believe on any level and simply using the words people does not make it any more true.
I could make a document called "we the DesideriScuri" and personally control the whole show and there would be nothing illegal about it.
whats in a name?
Being a party OF an organization means subject to that organization in a possessory sense, "states united" on the other hand simply means a lose association.
Patrick Henry spelled it out that the AUTHORITY in fact DID NOT COME FROM THE common PEOPLE, which is why he asked who gave them the authority to speak for and use the name of the people INSTEAD of the STATES.
quote:
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.
This draws one to immediate notice that STATE and PEOPLE are not one in the same and never have been since its creation.
Especially since the structure of government as it stands today matches what PH said? "We the states"
The constitution if we want to the end to match the means would be correctly written as We the States of the United Government of America."
Hence if you wish to go with the common rag I would challenge you to dig up the records and prove the matter, however I expect you will be as disappointed as I was to find out only 1 of the colonies/states actually voted to create a constitution.
the rest were done by the "estate lords" who people through tradition simply did nothing when they acted as delegates.
quote:
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate: Let those flatter who fear; it is not an American art. To give praise which is not due might be well from the venal, but would ill beseem those who are asserting the rights of human nature. They know, and will therefore say, that kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.
the intended basis of law in this country is by "laws of nature", not what we have now where the laws of nature have been either abandoned or regurgitated illegally as a privilege or immunity.
No where will you find ANY cases acknowledging the laws of nature (the declaration of independence) as an element in a court ruling.
WHY?
quote:
(1) 1632 Maryland was granted to lord Baltimore, 14. c. 2. Pennsylvania to Penn, and the province of Carolina was in the year 1663 granted by letters patent of majesty, king Charles II. in the 15th year of his reign, in propriety, unto the right honourable Edward earl of Clarendon, George duke of Albemarle, William earl of Craven, John lord Berkeley, Anthony lord Ashley, sir George Carteret, sir John Coleton, knight and baronet, and sir William Berkeley, knight; by which letters patent the laws of England were to be in force in Carolina: But the lords proprietors had power, _with the consent of the inhabitants,_ to make bye-laws for the better government of the said province; so that no money could be received, or law made, without the consent of the inhabitants, or their representatives. Back
(2) 12. c. 2. c. 18. 15. c. 2. c. II. 25. c. 2. c. 7. 7. 8. W. M. c. 22. II. W. 3. 4. Anne. 6. G. 2. c. 13. Back
(3) 5. G. 2. Back
(4) 23. G. 2. c. 29. Back
(5) 5. G. 270. Back
(6) 4. G. 3. c. 15. Back
(7) 5. G. 3. c. 12. Back
(8) 6. G. 3. c. 12. Back
(9) 7. G. 3. Back
(10) 7. G. 3. c. 59. Back
(11) 14. G. 3. Back
(12) 14. G. 3. Back
(13) 12. G. 3. c. 24. Back
so did these patents simply evaporate?
Since I am patrick Henry (and several others) educated I need proof before I accept your version
quote:
Now, I'm not saying I know more than Patrick Henry or any of the Founding Fathers. However, I do believe it's quite clear.
The Preamble to the US Constitution:quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If you break that down, it's "We the People of the United States" which is also "We the People of the states that are united." Notice the beginning only mentions the "United States" while the ending states the "United States of America." Since the US Constitution had to be ratified by 9 States, to be law of the land. Ratification required delegates elected by the people of the states. So, "We the People, of the United States" were literally the voters of the 13 States in the Union.
And, it had to come from the people. That's where all authorities are derived in the first place. At least, that was how it was supposed to be. We gave up some authority to the State (and also to Local Governments), and then we gave up others, and the States gave up some of the ones we gave to them, to the Federal Government. And, that is why what wasn't enumerated in the Constitution was left to the States or the People. If it had not been ratified, that would have been "We the People" saying, "Yeah, about that... no."
So what I am saying is the "People" are not the "people", except in "name only".
I left this whole thing intact since its so far back in the thread.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/23/2013 6:53:27 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: School Acts on Terrorist Threat - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread