Stuart K. Santiago states in the B&G ... Yes, Mr. Chase, but was does perpetual mean? Legally binding and indisoluble. They had such words back then and they could have used them. And if the article by perpetual meant forever, how does more perfect make it more permanent. Its just flimsy talk. The reason these States are held together is force. Brute force and not law is what held the country together. A “more perfect” union was established by the Constitution as a result of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, where each State was in a position to do what it wanted without regard effect on its sister states. The union continued to be “perpetual” under the Constitution, but was made stronger, and hence more perfect. The absence of the words, “legally binding and indissoluble” has no bearing on the intent of the Constitution as expressed in the Preamble, just as the absence of the word “secession” from the 14th Amendment has no bearing on the fact that the 14th Amendment clearly prohibits secession. Mr. Santiago, does not understand that the 14th amendment did NOT exist in 1860 1nd 1861. the 14th amendment was NOT ratified until after our CSA States existed under occupation, and our CSA State governments were forced into exile. This is how the ignorant Yankee attempts to justify their governments illegal and unlawful action. Mr.Santiago has argued here that a portion of the Articles were carried over from the Articles to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution without such specific portion being enumerated. Mr. Santiago, is implying that somehow a portion of the Articles survived the ratification of the Constitution. Yet this introduces another contradiction: If the Articles were perpetual then how could they have been replaced by the Constitution? Are the Articles still in force? Are they in full force, or did only two words -- be perpetual -- survive? Another consideration is that most of the States that seceded were never party to the old Constitution Stiled the Articles of Confederation. Now, were the occupying U.S. Government to decide today to change the U.S. Constitution by changing its entire system with another wherein, the people were no longer allowed to elect their representation within this new system,but that their representatives would be appointed by political parties, such as Democrat and Republican, each getting an equal number in order to make it a More perfect union would Mr. Santiago, be able to claim that the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a representative republic and that the representatives were still accountable to the people? Would one be able to claim that the right of suffrage was carried over even though not enumerated in this new Constitution? The occupying governments, Antonin Scalia, was asked the question concerning secession and he states..... I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. As we can see, here, A justice of the occupying governments highest court has stated that.... I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. As we can see, Scalia sidestepped the issue, as he cannot point to a law concerning secession, therefore he claims that an illegal act of war and coercion has settled the issue, AND THAT A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS SOMEHOW LAW. This pledge was not even in existence in 1860: Originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. He then goes on to ask a question and offer supposition rather than answer the question. Scalia states that a state that a State cannot sue the United States without ITS consent. Notice the singular in which he refers to their United States, rather than stating that THESE United States cannot be sued without THEIR consent. But more importantly, a State in its secession does NOT sue, in order to exercise its retained sovereignty, again we must return to the tenth amendment which 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. The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution is suppose to be a set of laws which the States established creating a central body, these laws grant powers to the States in union collectively, RESERVING ALL OTHER POWERS TO THEMSELVES INDIVIDUALLY, OUTSIDE OF THAT DELEGATED TO THEM IN UNION COLLECTIVELY. There is no law, there is no power delegated to the States in union collectively to prevent an INDIVIDUAL State from exercising its reserved POWER, Absent a law, then the SCOTUS has no reference in which to render an opinion, hence Scalia sidesteps the question by using supposition.
Posted on: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:45:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015