Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


Specifically, it states you need Unity, so no. To imply otherwise is to say the rules weren’t rules.

That isn’t what I’m getting at. The standard is that everyone must agree, then changes are passed.

But they implemented the changes before there was agreement.

There was no room in the Articles for that.

Pointing to “look eventually Rhode island gave their consent” doesn’t matter, if they were already executing the changes before that consensus was reached.

They violated the Articles by doing that. Delegates from the two dissenting states pointed this out.


The FACT is that we abandoned the Articles of Confederation and have operated under the U.S. Constitution for well over 200 years now. THAT’S the document that constitutes the basis of our law. Anything preceding it is immaterial other than the Declaration.


I wouldn’t go so far as to say the articles of confederation are immaterial. They were a good attempt at a limited form of government that ultimately proved inadequate.


Agreed, except that the Articles of Confederation ARE immaterial insofar as current law is concerned.


Sure, but we broke the law first to do it.


Let’s not forget the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This would include, in my opinion, the rights of free Englishmen before the Revolution. The Magna Carta, for example.


What are you talking about, OD? Nobody here is denying that we have rights that aren’t “enumerated” in the Constitution. What we ARE discussing is whether or not we had a right to abandon the Articles of Confederation and replace them with the Constitution…and we clearly DID. If AS thinks that was done somehow “illegally,” that’s his opinion–which, like an a**hole, each of us has.


My bad. Should have learned not to butt in on your conversations with AS. Carry on.


Not at all, OD. I don’t have a problem with you joining the conversation. I just wondered why you’d bring up the Magna Carta in a conversation about the AofC and Constitution. Everyone here (mostly) understands that part of the basis of our Constitution is English Common Law, traceable back to the Magna Carta but that has literally nothing to do with how the transition from the AofC to the Constitution occurred. We can go even further back than the MC when English “law” was based on “might makes right.” In any dispute between a commoner and a member of the peerage, the fact that the peer was allowed weapons and the commoner was NOT determined which of them was “right.” In theory, the MC changed all that (though not really.)


No; I’m saying you couldn’t do it without unity, because that’s what the Articles called for.

To imply otherwise, is to say rules, aren’t rules.

Certainly you did not have the right to execute a Government without that unity. Which again, is something the two states who hadn’t ratified themselves pointed out.


Who cares?
Everything I wrote is indisputable; there is no such thing as a secession that requires permission from anyone but the governed and there is no higher authority than the document which declares it a responsibility of the citizens to abolish and replace any form of government that becomes an enemy to the citizens.

You ignored (as usual) every unassailable point I made in favor of dropping names that never had the authority to abolish the nation that was founded by the Declaration of Independence.

Let me guess, your going to link something from Napolitano now?


It is disputable, because you’re implying you understand both pieces better than the people who wrote them.

That’s a claim I don’t buy.

And Rhode Island voters rejected the Constitution. It was forced on them.

By a secessionary Congress, representing the very Government they didn’t want.


Then why does Rhode Island even HAVE representatives in Congress or Senators, AS? It’s because Rhode Island HAS accepted and adopted the Constitution, irrespective of what they may have done or said in the late 18th Century.


I am claiming the exact message declared in the document that Founded this nation and that has never been rescinded or overthrown.

Rhode Island deciding they don’t like or do like any government structure formed since then has no bearing on the subject at all.

Which is why you keep bringing them up, big surprise.


Agreed, RET. What difference does Rhode Island’s opinions in 1790 have to do with whether or not we are a nation of 50 States, ALL governed by the same Constitution today?


Because they were forced. With sanctions.


The law was broken to get the Constitution adopted.

Anything done to legitimize the move was done after the fact.


And yet the Articles proclaimed the union was eternal, and that changes had to be made in unison.

You 've stated nothing that changes this fact.

This was the expectation, because it’s written in the Articles in plain English.


How many people died from that application of “force”? How many cities were burned, how many women raped?

That government collapsed, Slim. The demand for perfect unity in all things proved too burdensome, and the governing authority shredded itself. The articles of confederstion ceased to have force when the majority chose to abandon them. The confederacy thus estsblished imploded. It was not an act of an outside agency, It was not an act of a minority imposing it’s will upon the many with military might, but of a super-majority exerting their right to abandon a failed system. Your position is that two states had the authority to hold eleven states hostage to a failed system. You hold the authority of a piece of paper higher than the rights of peoples to self determination.


That doesn’t matter. If the Government arbitrarily stationed officials on my property, that would just as easily be a lawbreak. It goes against what they’re authorized to do.