Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


In the United States you do. Our rights are not defined by law and instead, are described in the Declaration of Independence. A law that violates those rights, violates our own laws, which are only allowed and created because they are supposed to protect those rights. Our country and its laws are founded on disobeying laws! The founders illustrated this for us very well as AS mentions below.


Not strictly true. The Declaration of Independence is not codified law. The Constitution is another story. But even then, it’s not breaking the law that’s truly at work here. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any lesser law in conflict with it is definitionally null and void and of no legal effect (although the courts have made a hash of that one; because they did break the law). Our country was founded on breaking British laws (some of which were in contradiction to their own Bill of Rights), but our laws were not.


But the Constitution doesn’t claim to create rights, and echoes the Declaration that certain unalienable rights are undeclared.

We broke the law to write the Constitution.


Indirectly. The British had already conceded our independence before the Constitution was written.


True, FC! AS’s reading of ACTUAL history is sadly lacking. We were already an independent nation when the Constitution was written and passed…recognized as such by EVERY European nation–INCLUDING Great Britain.


Completely false. The United States of America was already an independent nation, and altered it’s own laws through a transparent democratic process, where input from all enfranchised parties was duly weighed into the final outcome.

EDIT: Sheesh, spell check, how did you miss that typo…?


No, I mean the Articles of Confederation. We broke our own system to usher in another.


The system was judged to be too broken already to serve the needs of the states or the people, and it was replaced through a legitimate representative process, requiring ratification at both the convention and state levels.

Quoting the Articles Of Confederation: “The united states in congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of one delegate from each state; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction…”

Completely legit, Slim.


But the Philadelphia convention was not empowered to do what it did.

It was given authorization to convene “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Not replacing them.

The convention also changed the ratification process, completely running past Congress and state legislatures, and authorized ratification with just a three-quarters majority, where the Articles required unanimity.

You can add on justifications after-the-fact for why these things were necessary, but that’s what they are, after-the-fact. You broke the law first to get there.


The convention drafted a plan of government. It was not enacted until it was approved by the state legislatures. There was never any serious contention (EDIT: among the convention delegates, that is) over whether to replace the existing government, only over what form the new one should take.

Hmm. I don’t recall learning about any formal congressional objections. No resolutions or articles of objection passed? I don’t know everything, thoigh, so i might have missed it…

So which states didn’t ratify? We’re non-consenting states to be compelled to join? I mean, I don’t see any language providing for compelling states to remain after they have ratified, so it’s even harder to contort forced acceptance from the language.


No, the legislatures were left out. State Conventions rather were used to ratify the Constitution.

Which again, isn’t following the ratification process the Articles called for.

And again, you haven’t refuted the central fact: Legitimacy was added on after-the-fact. They broke the law first.

You can call it necessary, you can cite there wasn’t much opposition, but it doesn’t change the fact that the law was broken.


Congress voted to approve it, and submitted it to the state legislatures. So tell me, who selected (or determined the selection method for) the delegates to the state conventions?


Which is still adding on legitimacy after-the-fact.

Delegates were chosen through special elections; most were not appointed directly.

Sidestep all you want, but the fact hasn’t changed. The law was broken, and it was smoothed over after-the-fact.

Oh and as to that whole “unity thing”; ever learned how Rhode Island was made to ratify?


Whatever the convention did had to be submitted to congress, and without congressional approval would have been ‘illegitimate’. Had they merely drafted revisions of the articles of confederation, those would have been illegitimate without congressional approval

Had nine state legislatures voted to reject the constitution rather than accept it for consideration, it would have been dead in the water.

Rhode Island? Heh, no force was threatened. Only trade sanctions. Funny you think they had the right to withhold ratification and the federal government was wrong to use economic pressure on them, but you’re a-okay with using murder, plunder and rape to compel states to remain…


They did not, nor could they offer approval. They sent it to the States for that.

Which again, was not the standard the Articles of Confederation allowed. You needed complete unity.

Yes, because that’s how the Articles of Confederation worked.

There was no mechanism for the Federal Government to coerce States into ratifying anything, that goes against the very idea of what a Confederation is.

Rhode Island also held a popular referendum on the Constitution. Forcing a social charter onto a dissenting public – something the Articles would certainly have not allowed.

Dirty tactics were applied to the other Colonies too, yet it was swept under the rug. Majority opinion trounced minority rights.


They could not offer ratification . As I understand it, they could have rejected the work of the convention, sent them home or back to the drawing board, but instead, they approved it for consideration by the states.

“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

That’s the heart of the foundational principles of the Articles of Confederation, right there, from the founding document of the United States, a document which must have the force of law, else all other U.S. law is null and void, including the Constitution.

That’s actually how they didn’t work. If they had, we wouldn’t be having this conversation…

Where’s the one in the Constitution that made it legal for Abe Lincoln to murder, rape and plunder the south into submission? Since I know you won’t answer, I will: there isn’t one.

The rights of the majority to form a new association trumped the rights of the minority to obstruct it.


Fair enough, I won’t contest this.

This doesn’t excuse the lack of unity. The Articles still proscribe process, and that process was violated.

Congress met, as a secessionary Congress, without North Carolina or Rhode Island in attendance, and gave them ultimatums to join into another document, that was supposed to be agreed to voluntarily.

The fact that that government was already executed without all States present (much less offering consent), and that the Articles themselves gave no room for secession, demanding that the Union would be “perpetual”, meant that that action was in fact illegal.

Consent after-the-fact (and by coercion), doesn’t change this.

You’ve basically admitted this yourself, as the only defense you’ve offered for this is deflection to something else.


Absolutely irrelevant, the highest authority is the document that established this nation and that will not change until/unless we are overthrown and reestablished under a new authority; that document is the Declaration of Independence.

The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and everything else that has followed the Declaration of Independence is subservient to the Rights and Responsibilities that are stated clearly in the document that established this nation.

Secession is not only “allowed” it is a responsibility to secede if the government becomes an enemy to the people and corrupt to the point of no repair short of complete abolishment.

It is the mantra of tyrants to say “you can’t legally seceed”, it should be engraved on all of their headstones as a legacy and a warning to future tyrants who take comfort in such pointless declarations.


Then tell me RET, why did they write it that way?

Jefferson was one of the writers; there’s no record of him objecting to this.

In fact, when Benjamin Franklin first included “Perpetual Union” as a draft, Jefferson was one of the delegates who supported it.


Uh, yes it does. Specifically.

{grammar nazi} Proscribe is "to forbid, especially by law. I’m sure you meant prescribe, “to state authoritatively or set as a rule” etc. {/grammar nazi}

They were not excluded. They made the choice not to attend. And they were not forced to ratify. No one (well, no one who mattered) would have stood for military action to compel them to to become signatories. Oh nos, the government is using threat of economic sanctions to gain compliance from some states! The horror! But I guess had George Washington mustered an army and raped, plundered and murdered his way across the recalcitrant states until they complied, you’d call him a hero, huh?

The government arbitrating the law you are so concerned with dissolved in failure and was reconstituted in an open and democratic process to which every state had the right AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to contribute.

Because as gentlemen of generally good will, they generally assumed that good will would be the standard of conduct among the states. Unfortunately, some states chose to allow narrow self interest to overrule the common weal, ultimately to the detriment of all, until the majority had had enough of it. (2 cents,please)