clark~ We are going to have to recognize at least nearly the same set of facts
and here we are afar: MY ANSWERS IN RED (YAHOO NO LONGER ALLOWS COLORS!) BELOW
I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
your arguements conflict with each other and you dont see it.
first of all the decision to form the compact was by democratic rule and
majority agreement. All of the delegates agreed to this, if the individual
states disagreed it was their place to remove their delegates. As far as I can
determine, the people attending the meeting s relating to independence of the
individual nation States and any co-operation between such were members of a
Continental Congress. These were chosen to represent the people according to
the Rule of Hundreds (Or tens as some prefer) and that doesn’t qualify for any
but the loosest defining of the word “Democracy” if even possibly in some
accord with the term “Democratic”, meaning “in the manner of a democracy”, i.e.
to share participation with all in political processes. Note here the vast
difference between “delegate” and “representative” wjen used is the sense of a
“congress” (Especially such as the “Continental Congress”, which at the time
was a group representing the political interests of the Colonies)
it was agreed that all delegates would accept the outcome of the effort to
create a government that all states would recognize. admitting that the
agreement was not perfect. I know of no such apriori agreement. The reason all
colonial
interests at the July 4th “Sitting Congress in Session” accepted the
results promulgated therefrom was the fact the consensus was unanimous. Thus
the name given,
“Unanimous Declaration”! Jesus Christ told us somewhat early on we would not be
coming forth with “Perfection”, let alone in political matters. He did, however
endorse the Rule of Hundreds.
for a state to be admitted as a memeber it is required that the national
constitution be recognized first as setting the standards as a minimum for all
member states that must be complied with. You make the point that you as a
kentuckian do not have to recognize the tenth amendment but use it to back your
arguement. Now
here is perhaps where you find me at cross purposes with myself, so lets clear
the air on this major issue! The people who met at the “Constitutional
Convention some ten years later than the above group were not two things: They
were not empowered as was the first in that they HAD ZERO LEGISLATIVE POWERS!
Additionally they were SELF ELECTED! I would here make another very significant
observation, that being that I have no idea where you come by the belief the
congressmen of the above compaction were committed to submit their relative
constituents
to any sort of compace of agreement binding them with other colonial elements.
It was a participate if you wish, decline otherwise sort of deal! Now the
decade later group had no grounds to commit anybody to anything, even each
other! Do you not see that as both some problem as well as grand difference in
the two? As for “ratification”, that remains obscure to this date and only 7 of
13 did!. Have you lost sight of the principle of government by the consent of
the governed? That was real big back then!
I agree with you that each state is independent and that the national or
federal government has far over stepped it constitutional authority in
uncounted ways. As
a point of interest here, what exactly
do you consider to be the (Your) constitution? What I am driving at here is
that the “authority” of a Federal Government was not concluded by either tha
actual Constitution nor was it asn
outcome of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, by the
way, was a performance of the Continental Congress in new role as Congress of
the united States of America in Session!
the bill of rights belongs to every state for every citizen, note I
specifically say citizen.
The Bill of
Rights is a result of the conditions outlined in its own Preamble. It was/is
NOTHING NEW! Rather it is a restatement
in fortification – not total reiteration – of the rights of God as spoken of as
unalienable in the actual constituting of the united States of
America!
the fourteen years you mention are related to being a resident of this country
prior to the adoption of the existing constitution at the time the constitution
was ratified. remember the ratification was by citizen vote. not the way
congress acts today. The ratification of the Constitution FOR the United States
of
America was not by plebiscite. I ask YOU to figure out
both what the “United States” is and when
EXACTLY it came into being and how! The exact wording I refer to is, “…and been
fourteen years a resident within the United States.” Don’t tell me you
don’t get a date of July Fourth, AD1790!!
Congress has taken power it was never albe to have and doing so is an act of
treason. a crime against every citizen. From the git-go let alone the phony
congress following March
27th, Ad1861!
If you are going to argue the constitution is void do not use it to support
your arguements. the constitution is not void the government is. Again I think
you
have over and over missed my point as to both WHAT constitutes a “Constitution?
As well as what that is for the united States of
America! Come aboard!
the constitution is the written job discription for government action and
responsibility. it clearly states we can replace them for violating their job
discription. that has not ever been done correctly. Government Telling the
citizens we nolonger have that power is an act of treason. We must again go
back – as always we must – to
the fact of governance coming through ONLY the consent of the governed and when
dealing with
individual sovereigns that bespeaks “individuals”
Until more citizens understand the word treason we are not going to restore the
constitution to get our right of citizenship back.
One citizen has more power than all of government but they have to exercise
that power as the duty of citizenship.
Factually there is not one person in government that is not guilty of treason,
because there is not one person upholding and enforcing the constitution and
complying with their job discription according to their sacred oath. they tell
us we have to keep paying them and accept things as they are. Who works for
who?
Like it or not your ancestors accepted the federal constitution as having the
powers it declares but nothing more. the treason is what has changed
everything. recognize what is treason them make your arguements. My ancestors
who
were involved (One side being from Germany/Switzerland) were of Virginia in
AD1776. The Virginia Resolutions
following those of Kentucky were alike! The
Constitution of Kentucky to this day is the
Constitution of Virginia AD1776.! Forget
“federal” constitution! A compact IS NOT a device creative of a nation or
anything other thaN minimal FEDERAL
GOVERNANCE! A confederation is an alliance or association! --a person, group,
nation or state united
with another or others for some common purpose!
How are we doing here? Would you rethink? ~Hal~
