-
Constitution and U.S. Code
I know this sounds like a silly question and I was not sure where else to ask this, but is the US Code also the Constitution?
I ask because I have heard it argued that laws, for instance, that pertain to war crimes and torture in the US Code, do not apply since they are not in the Constitution. :confused:
Can someone please help me out on this question?
-
Re: Constitution and Us Code
There are different laws that apply.
The Constitution (COTUS) is the supreme law of the land. This document establishes our government, and protects certain rights that we are all born with, just because we are human. (This is called "Natural Rights") The only crime specifically mentioned in the COTUS is treason.
The United States Code (USC) is the set of Federal Laws established by Congress, and signed into law by the President (POTUS)
The Code of Federal Regualtions (CFR) is a set of regulations that have the force of law, and are set by agencies with rulemaking powers. The IRS, Postal Service, Parks Service, FDA, Federal Trade Commission, FCC, and FAA are all examples of rulemaking bodies.
As far as how specific laws are applied, more details are needed.
-
Re: Constitution and Us Code
Thanks for the thorough response. It does raise further questions for me though.
So its incorrect to say that a law in the US Code is Constitutional law? One doesn't have less authority than the other or is that based upon reinterpretation? Is the US Code an extended interpretation of law within the Constitution?
-
Re: Constitution and Us Code
Not really. The USC is not Constitutional law. (Which is different from saying that something is unconstitutional) Most of the USC is established by Congress using their constitutionally granted powers. The Constitution overrules any laws that are in conflict with it, as decided by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Treaties also supercede the USC. The heirarchy goes like this:
COTUS, Treaties, USC, CFR
On the one hand, strict Constitutionalists (I am among those with those beliefs) believe that Congress's power should be limited to only those duties listed in the Constitution. All other powers should be vested to the people and the state governments. The Tenth Amendment specifically says, "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."
On the other hand, more liberal interpreters of the constitution allow for powers more tangential to those duties. Many individuals cite the Necessary and Proper and the Commerce clause as grounds for their argument. The overall trend has seen more power shifting to the Federal Government generally, and specifically to Congress. ( A good example of this is to ask where the Government gets the power to 'bail out' companies or even provide free money to individuals. Heck, 90% of Federal Law uses those 2 clauses for justification.)
A good example is seen from a case that originated during the Second World War (I don't remember the name). A farmer was prosecuted for growing wheat on his own farm to feed his cattle, in violation of rationing laws. He argued that the law was unconstitutional, because his wheat was not involved in interstate commerce. The court disagreed, saying that his wheat allowed him to not buy wheat, which affected interstate commerce since he was not buying any, and thus placed his wheat within Congress' domain.
Interpreting the Commerce clause so broadly essentially gives Congress unlimited power to regulate. Personally, I do not feel that the founders intended to give such broad powers to the Federal Government. Then again, SCOTUS has not asked for my opinion on the matter.
-
Re: Constitution and Us Code
Quote:
Quoting
gimpster
Thanks for the thorough response. It does raise further questions for me though.
So its incorrect to say that a law in the US Code is Constitutional law? One doesn't have less authority than the other or is that based upon reinterpretation? Is the US Code an extended interpretation of law within the Constitution?
If we read some amendments, for example:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You can see, as in 2, that Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to pass laws of enforcement.
Also:
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
One clear example of such is the DOMA, Defense of marriage act. Congress, by direct authority of the FFC clause itself, has outlined what FFC shall be given to any state's records concerning same sex marriages, that is, they do NOT have to honor them under the FFC, however they can choose to do so under thier own laws, either statutory or common law.
So, yes, at times, the US Code, or enactments of Congress, can be a direct extension of the Constitution itself. Until the SC rules it is unconstitutional, it is the "law of the land" per the Supremacy clause of Article 6.
They actually have ruled same sex marriage prohibitions do NOT violate the Constitution, however, the 1971 ruling did NOT concern DOMA.
Here is a thread I started on the 24th, if you are interested in reading up on the Constitutional Covention of 1787.
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77613
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
On the one hand, strict Constitutionalists (I am among those with those beliefs) believe that Congress's power should be limited to only those duties listed in the Constitution. All other powers should be vested to the people and the state governments. The Tenth Amendment specifically says, "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."
On the other hand, more liberal interpreters of the constitution allow for powers more tangential to those duties. Many individuals cite the Necessary and Proper and the Commerce clause as grounds for their argument. The overall trend has seen more power shifting to the Federal Government generally, and specifically to Congress. ( A good example of this is to ask where the Government gets the power to 'bail out' companies or even provide free money to individuals. Heck, 90% of Federal Law uses those 2 clauses for justification.)
I also believe Congress has fattened up it's legislative agenda far outside what the Founding Father's envisioned, they are way too big, IMO.
Also the "General Welfare" clause not only in the Premable, but Article 1, sec. 8 supposedly gives Congress powers not explicity set out as the others in sec. 8. as the Commerce Clause has been subjected to.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Quote:
Interpreting the Commerce clause so broadly essentially gives Congress unlimited power to regulate. Personally, I do not feel that the founders intended to give such broad powers to the Federal Government. Then again, SCOTUS has not asked for my opinion on the matter.
I agree also, the CC is widely misued. The federal government is TOO big, as we see why we are 11 trillion $$$$$ in debt.
Thanks to a bunch of idiots, this deficit will NEVER be able to lowered unless taxes are seriously raised and a balanced AM budget/Constitutional AM is passed.
Thank you Congress, you don't care, you get your fat salaries and pensions.
-
Re: Constitution and Us Code
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
Thank you Congress, you don't care, you get your fat salaries and pensions.
Bitter, party of one . . .
I jest, of course. In all actuality, there's no reason to thank them. Really, it's all in a day's work.
Congress legislates using an idea my father made me aware of when I was quite young: "If you have a friend who's true blue, better **** him before he ****s you."
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Yeah, us taxpayers have a lot of money. What was Obama's budget to Congress for fiscal 2010, I heard it was over 3 trillion???
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
Yeah, us taxpayers have a lot of money. What was Obama's budget to Congress for fiscal 2010, I heard it was over 3 trillion???
Sure. We taxpayers have all the money. However, it doesn't follow that we have a unified idea as to how to spend it.
The reason that big business can do more is that they have both money and a focused agenda. Getting all the people with small amounts of money to work towards a common goal isn't a common, or easy for that matter, thing to do. /shrug
This is easily observed when the electorate has sent up an Opposition Congress to the White House. How that works itself out in anyone's mind to be a good idea is beyond me because it logjams a process already littered with tedious people.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
This is easily observed when the electorate has sent up an Opposition Congress to the White House. How that works itself out in anyone's mind to be a good idea is beyond me because it logjams a process already littered with tedious people.
That was the way it was intended to work. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to pass laws. That way, only laws which were important to everyone would pass. The real damage is done when the Legislative and Executive branches are rubber stamping each other. Both wind up taking more power for themselves, and dictating to the people, rather than securing liberty.
The whole idea was to have a small, rather powerless Federal government settling trade disputes between independent states. Sort of a unified free trade area. That idea failed during the period between 1860 (when the States lost the right to secede) and 1912 (with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments). What we have now is a populist, socialist oligarchy.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
That was the way it was intended to work. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to pass laws. That way, only laws which were important to everyone would pass. The real damage is done when the Legislative and Executive branches are rubber stamping each other. Both wind up taking more power for themselves, and dictating to the people, rather than securing liberty.
The whole idea was to have a small, rather powerless Federal government settling trade disputes between independent states. Sort of a unified free trade area. That idea failed during the period between 1860 (when the States lost the right to secede) and 1912 (with the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments). What we have now is a populist, socialist oligarchy.
I like your view of history. Indeed, I like anyone who can so blindly ignore all the countervailing evidence. It's special, and I applaud it.
Not to point out the obvious, but the states didn't actually have the right secede. Though some thought they did, it turned out they were wrong. Moreover, the federal government wasn't designed to be rather powerless; it was designed such that what powers it required would be diffuse and disparate among three co-equal branches to avoid the pooling of power into one mere branch. That we frequently send opposing parties to the White House and the Congress tends, as I said, to frustrate the process of efficiency. But while doing so, it at least, presumably, restricts the amount of power either can hold. It isn't a perfect system, but we've somehow managed not implode yet.
Not to take issue with your definitions, but a populist, social oligarchy. If I understand the term, it's anathema to an oligarchy. And doesn't socialism tend to distribute power of the "elite" to the greater population as a whole? I think many wouldn't disagree with the idea that in our country, money is frequently a driving force behind one's power. Redistributing that wealth would seem to cut against the power remaining in the hands of the few.
Also, and this is a minor note, the people are free at any time to dissolve the government and start anew. That we choose not to says to me that on level, the government is working how the majority generally want it to. Since the power ultimately is in the hands of the citizenry who merely loan it to the representatives, it would seem that if we truly are an oligarchy, it's one of massive proportions - which stands in opposition to an oligarchy.
Maybe I've missed something in your diatribe
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Sure they did- any compact that you enter you can leave. The reason the secession didn't work is that military force was used to prevent it. It is not so much that they were wrong, but that they LOST. The outcome of the Civil war had nothing to do with who was wrong, but instead proved the rule of "might makes right."
Having the the same party in control of both branches enhances efficiency? Efficiency of what? The controlling party's agenda?
Yes, we are a populist, socialist oligarchy. That is a small group of people who maintain power through the promise of free stuff at the expense of the other guy. Yet, no matter who is in office, very little changes.
The fact that our government still stands is less a testament to its effectiveness and popularity than it is to the fact that we are a very young country.
One last thought- if we were supposed to have the Government we have now, explain the following to me:
the 10th amendment
explain what Article 1, Section 8 meant when it said Congress had the power: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Where does the Constitution grant the Executive, or the Legislature, the power to "redistribute wealth?"
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
Sure they did- any compact that you enter you can leave. The reason the secession didn't work is that military force was used to prevent it. It is not so much that they were wrong, but that they LOST. The outcome of the Civil war had nothing to do with who was wrong, but instead proved the rule of "might makes right."
Having the the same party in control of both branches enhances efficiency? Efficiency of what? The controlling party's agenda?
Yes, we are a populist, socialist oligarchy. That is a small group of people who maintain power through the promise of free stuff at the expense of the other guy. Yet, no matter who is in office, very little changes.
The fact that our government still stands is less a testament to its effectiveness and popularity than it is to the fact that we are a very young country.
One last thought- if we were supposed to have the Government we have now, explain the following to me:
the 10th amendment
explain what Article 1, Section 8 meant when it said Congress had the power: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Where does the Constitution grant the Executive, or the Legislature, the power to "redistribute wealth?"
It probably has something to do with that pesky "ensure the general welfare" bit that you seem to ignore. And that petty little bit about the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. For that matter, if a state wanted to leave the union, all that would be needed is the concurrence of three quarters of the states to amend the Constitution such that said state is specifically removed from the union. To get to that point, a state need only either be very convincing, or capable of pissing off just about everyone.
That we are a young country isn't determinative of whether our system of government will or won't work. Thousands of countries have failed in far less time than ours. Considerably less time at that.
You also ignore the supremacy clause, which essentially means that federal laws are superior to state laws. Or, in a more day to day use, the federal government has power to mandate to the states certain courses of actions, and to restrict from them other courses of action. That they were told they can't secede, and that they attempted to do anyway but weren't powerful enough to force their will on the remainder of the nation is really of no moment.
After all, what good is the law if the government lacks the power to enforce it?
The Law: "No, you can't do that."
The Rebel: "But I will since you can't stop me!"
The Law: "Well-played, sir, well-played. Drats, bested again!"
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Populist ... maybe. At times. Currently, the executive is at the head of a (blind) populist tide, but that tide of populism can change.
Socialist ... uh, no. Not yet, anyway. But, Obama and the left are trying. In broad terms, socialism advocates cooperative or state control of the means of production and even may advocate a more even distribution of wealth.
Oligarchy ... Well, I suppose it can be seen that way, but I don't think so. Since this requires the rule of a privileged few, we would have to define that ruling class. Who are they? Yes, we know who they are after they are elected, but can you point out people that are members of that same ruling class? Are they rich? Are they lawyers? Are all the rich and lawyers members of this class? Why not? My local representative is a farmer ... he is well-to-do, but hardly "rich" and is not an attorney. So, unless we define the privileged ruling class as our elected representatives, I don't see this as an oligarchy, either.
Personally, I am not in to labeling our government because it really serves no purpose. Are we currently leaning to the left and sprinting towards a socialist state? Yeppirs, we are. Will we end up there in four or eight years? I hope not. But, are we a populist, socialist oligarchy? No. Are there elements of all three in the current administration and legislative mindset? Sure.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
And that petty little bit about the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.
Where exactly does the Constitution say that? What you are referring to is actually a SCOTUS case, Marbury v Madison, where the Marshall Court took judicial power for itself. (Rightly or wrongly, that case is an entirely different debate, which is ripe for abuse. For example, when the SCOTUS was going to declare the "New Deal" unconstitutional, FDR threatened to pack the court by adding more Justices to it, so that we would have 15 instead of the current 9. They caved)
Quote:
It probably has something to do with that pesky "ensure the general welfare" bit that you seem to ignore.
So, are you a "negative rights" person? That is, do you believe that the people and the states only have the rights that are enumerated in the COTUS? For if you read the "general welfare" clause to mean "redistribute wealth" then the 10th amendment becomes meaningless, as the government can twist "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" to mean anything it wants it to mean.
Quote:
Oligarchy ... Well, I suppose it can be seen that way, but I don't think so. Since this requires the rule of a privileged few, we would have to define that ruling class.
The heads of the two political parties. They call the shots. Them and the big money supporters who fund them. There are really very few differences between the R's and the D's. Sure, they squeal loudly over what few differences there are, but when push comes to shove, they all follow the same path.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
ashman165
You also ignore the supremacy clause, which essentially means that federal laws are superior to state laws. Or, in a more day to day use, the federal government has power to mandate to the states certain courses of actions, and to restrict from them other courses of action. That they were told they can't secede, and that they attempted to do anyway but weren't powerful enough to force their will on the remainder of the nation is really of no moment.
Federal law does not always supercede/pre-empt state laws, but mostly, yes.
The feds have NO power against any state who would wish to repeal thier ratification of the constitution, that is, secede from the Union, as was done in the Civil war, HOWEVER, such would be Sovereign suicide.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
Federal law does not always supercede/pre-empt state laws, but mostly, yes.
If it did, then medical marijuana laws would have been struck down.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
If it did, then medical marijuana laws would have been struck down.
- Carl
They were, but Obama has told his US Attorney's to back off on the states that permit it.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
They were, but Obama has told his US Attorney's to back off on the states that permit it.
They were not struck down at all. What happened was that Obama told the DEA to back off enforcing the federal law, not that the courts overturned CA's law. In fact, the courts have thus far upheld the states' rights to make these laws.
What I liked (prior to this administration) was the prospect that the cops could drop a dime to the feds when they were ordered to return copious amounts of marijuana to a suspect, and then the feds could pop him for possession/sales/cultivation outside the police station! That won't happen now because the DEA has been effectively told to stand down.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
They were, but Obama has told his US Attorney's to back off on the states that permit it.
But only because the court ruled that there was no way to tell the difference between pot grown in interstate commerce, and pot grown entirely within a state.
An interesting challenge to that theory is happening in Montana. Montana has passed a law, authorizing people to make firearms without a Federal License, in violation of Federal Law, as long as they are stamped "made in Montana." The theory is that the Federal Govt cannot outlaw the manufacture, as long as the firearm is not involved in interstate commerce.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
They were not struck down at all. What happened was that Obama told the DEA to back off enforcing the federal law, not that the courts overturned CA's law. In fact, the courts have thus far upheld the states' rights to make these laws.
What I liked (prior to this administration) was the prospect that the cops could drop a dime to the feds when they were ordered to return copious amounts of marijuana to a suspect, and then the feds could pop him for possession/sales/cultivation outside the police station! That won't happen now because the DEA has been effectively told to stand down.
- Carl
Here is the case I was refering to: It prohibits local cultivation?
Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
Where exactly does the Constitution say that? What you are referring to is actually a SCOTUS case, Marbury v Madison, where the Marshall Court took judicial power for itself. (Rightly or wrongly, that case is an entirely different debate, which is ripe for abuse. For example, when the SCOTUS was going to declare the "New Deal" unconstitutional, FDR threatened to pack the court by adding more Justices to it, so that we would have 15 instead of the current 9. They caved)
So, are you a "negative rights" person? That is, do you believe that the people and the states only have the rights that are enumerated in the COTUS? For if you read the "general welfare" clause to mean "redistribute wealth" then the 10th amendment becomes meaningless, as the government can twist "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" to mean anything it wants it to mean.
The heads of the two political parties. They call the shots. Them and the big money supporters who fund them. There are really very few differences between the R's and the D's. Sure, they squeal loudly over what few differences there are, but when push comes to shove, they all follow the same path.
I appreciate the attempt to explain to me the history of supreme court rulings; however, since it is now and has been for 200 years the accepted, settled law of the land that the supreme court is the final arbiter on what the constitution means, there really isn't a great deal of room for debate. You can argue, I suppose, that they aren't, but they seem to think they are. Congress seems to agree, as do the President and the general Citizenry. I guess that's why when the supreme court hands down a constitutional interpretation, Congress doesn't say "well, we'll enact a law to counter your constitutional interpretation." If they did, the Court would simply strike that down again, which is probably why they tongue-in-cheek say that to alter it, all that is needed is a constitutional amendment.
I think you'd have a hard time successfully arguing to the Court that they aren't really possessed of the power to interpret the constitution and decide ultimately what it says. Even if you are right, after a couple hundred years, it's going to be a hard road to hoe.
The debate over what exactly "general welfare" means has been going on for a long, long time. We aren't likely to resolve it here, not that it would matter what you and I resolve since we aren't the people who actually do the interpreting. The supreme court does that, since they are --as is decidedly the case-- the final arbiter of what the constitution means. But consider that if the citizenry are dying off from, oh say, starvation, then I think there would be indeed a strong argument that redistribution of resources from those who have to those who do not would well be with in the province of the Congress to mandate. Clearly in that situation, the welfare of the people isn't in good repair. If lots of people just drop dead, then it's a sure sign that something in the welfare of the population has gone, or is going, the wrong way.
Surely you don't posit that the Congress would lack power to enact legislation to curb such a situation, even if it offends your notion of how the nation should be run.
Whether or not I'm a "negative rights" person isn't particularly relevant here for the same reason I stated above: my opinion isn't the one which shapes the contours of the law. For what it's worth, I happen to generally think that anything not specifically prohibited by law is legal. Things which aren't specifically denied to people are their right. But I also think that simply because something has been written down in the law doesn't mean that it's actually legal --that many laws get struck down supports informs my decision on this. I also happen to think that in a society which pretends to be a free one, such as ours, then there's a default assumption that all conduct is legal, and only specific issues which adversely affect the country should be made illegal. That is to say that the government should have very strong, compelling reasons for prohibiting anything instead of just legislating willy-nilly on whatever topic some particular sect happens to find offensive.
As BOR noted, Carl, the laws were indeed struck down. That the executive branch chooses not to enforce them in states where state law allows for it is another matter; that's a policy question, not so much a legal one. The Justice Department could go around in California arresting people and getting convictions for violation of federal law; they merely choose not to do so.
BOR, that's why I said the federal government has power to mandate to or withhold from states certain courses of action. This leaves an open space for situation in which it lacks power to do either, by way of a natural logical consequence.
It's also why I said "essentially" as in "basically". I think we can all agree that the basics of something don't cover every particular instance related to that something.
However, I do take issue with your assertion that federal government has "NO" power to repeal their ratification and thus secede. My evidence is perhaps anecdotal, and maybe even a little sketchy, but the Civil War laid to rest any reasonable notion that a state can do just what you say the federal government can't prevent them from doing. That the federal government has before done so, successfully, implies that it surely has at least one source of power to force the condition. Whether it's an ethical choice is a different matter. That the government has the power to do it is beyond question.
Or in other words, it's very difficult to argue that an entity lacks the ability to do something it has actually done, as a factual matter anyway. Now as a legal matter, it seems to be reasonably well resolved that no state may leave the union because it wants to. To that end, if one tries, there's no good reason to think that the federal government wouldn't hastily stop such action. I think we can all agree that we as a country have little compunction about using force to get what we want.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
An interesting challenge to that theory is happening in Montana. Montana has passed a law, authorizing people to make firearms without a Federal License, in violation of Federal Law, as long as they are stamped "made in Montana." The theory is that the Federal Govt cannot outlaw the manufacture, as long as the firearm is not involved in interstate commerce.
However, from what I have read that law is in jeopardy because the chances of all the components being mined, milled, and manufactured in the state are slim to none. So, the presumption is that the state will lose, but it HAS lit a fire under a number of legislators and state governments to try something along those lines but crafted a little more carefully.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
ashman165
I appreciate the attempt to explain to me the history of supreme court rulings; however, since it is now and has been for 200 years the accepted, settled law of the land that the supreme court is the final arbiter on what the constitution means, there really isn't a great deal of room for debate.
Justice Jackson, I believe it was, was quoted as saying "we are right because we are final, we are not final because we are right".
Quote:
However, I do take issue with your assertion that federal government has "NO" power to repeal their ratification and thus secede. My evidence is perhaps anecdotal, and maybe even a little sketchy, but the Civil War laid to rest any reasonable notion that a state can do just what you say the federal government can't prevent them from doing. That the federal government has before done so, successfully, implies that it surely has at least one source of power to force the condition. Whether it's an ethical choice is a different matter. That the government has the power to do it is beyond question.
I said the STATES can secede, what is to stop them? As I said, Soveriegn Suicide.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
Justice Jackson, I believe it was, was quoted as saying "we are right because we are final, we are not final because we are right".
I said the STATES can secede, what is to stop them? As I said, Soveriegn Suicide.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what precisely you mean by "Sovereign Suicide". If you mean that a larger, more powerful government (our federal one in this case) has plenary authority to arrest the conduct, or attempt thereat, by force if necessary, then we agree I would imagine.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
ashman165
Maybe I'm just not understanding what precisely you mean by "Sovereign Suicide". If you mean that a larger, more powerful government (our federal one in this case) has plenary authority to arrest the conduct, or attempt thereat, by force if necessary, then we agree I would imagine.
One, by that I mean the feds would be no longer required to PROTECT them from invasion as the Constitution mandates:
Article 4:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Two, no federal funds, of any kind, as an example, Obama's disbursements to the states, such as the old revenue sharing program entailed.
In South Dakota v. Dole, big brother forced the states to raise thier drinking age to 21 or loose federal highway funds, they all gave in.
Three, no federal protection/investigation of the federal criminal laws, no federal funds to help build jails, no federal funds for law enforecement, etc.
"Sovereign Suicide".
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
One, by that I mean the feds would be no longer required to PROTECT them from invasion as the Constitution mandates:
Article 4:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Two, no federal funds, of any kind, as an example, Obama's disbursements to the states, such as the old revenue sharing program entailed.
In South Dakota v. Dole, big brother forced the states to raise thier drinking age to 21 or loose federal highway funds, they all gave in.
Three, no federal protection/investigation of the federal criminal laws, no federal funds to help build jails, no federal funds for law enforecement, etc.
"Sovereign Suicide".
But, but, but there's NAFTA!
And we routinely dole huge sums of money to foreign states. =P
Yeah, I get what you're saying, and it isn't really an avenue I thought about at all. I suppose I was limiting my analysis to simply the act of trying to secede, and the act to prevent it, to the exclusion for any reason of why or why not. But you surely do raise a good point.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
But the states DID secede. They were invaded and "conquered" by the Union. It is easy to prove: West Virginia is a state. The only way that this could be the case is if Virginia had not been a state at the time that WV was admitted to the Union, since Art IV, Sec 3 prohibits any state from being admitted in to the Union from within the borders of another state. The mere existence of the State of West Virginia thus proves that Virginia (and presumably the rest of the Confederate States) successfully seceded from the Union.
The fact that the Union invaded, conquered, and readmitted the former states years later does not change the fact that they did secede.
ETA: I do understand that Marbury will stand, and I understand the reasoning behind it. I still stand behind my original statement, which started this sidetrack, that the original intent of the founders has been lost, and we do not have the government that we were intended to have.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
But the states DID secede. They were invaded and "conquered" by the Union. It is easy to prove: West Virginia is a state. The only way that this could be the case is if Virginia had not been a state at the time that WV was admitted to the Union, since Art IV, Sec 3 prohibits any state from being admitted in to the Union from within the borders of another state. The mere existence of the State of West Virginia thus proves that Virginia (and presumably the rest of the Confederate States) successfully seceded from the Union.
The fact that the Union invaded, conquered, and readmitted the former states years later does not change the fact that they did secede.
No more so than us having declared our independence from England actually made us independent. It was the ensuing war about the issue that dictated the result. Had we lost, it wouldn't have turned out that we actually did wind up becoming a nation. It would have been merely a rebellion put down by the Crown. (Sorry about the assonance there)
Just because a body of people choose to act in a certain way and give their cause a particular name, say in this case that of a newly formed nation, doesn't mean that it is so. I don't doubt for a moment that the people who do so have a genuine belief in what they're doing, well at least for the most part. However, belief doesn't dictate reality.
That some states asserted they were seceding from the Union would have been solidified had they won. Since they lost in their attempt at it, they were merely in a state of rebellion.
Now, if we consider that they succeeded and became an independent nation at the time and we, oh say, came back and conquered them in 1985, then you'd surely have a strong argument. No weaker than if England invaded us today and conquered us. It would then be true that we successfully rebelled, became an independent nation that was later conquered and absorbed. It's of no moment that the conquering body was the one from which we a couple of hundred years ago escaped.
There's a time component involved there; while an open war is going on over the issue I don't think it's right to proclaim "We succeeded! We are free!" It's when the active conflict ends that we are able to determine the outcome, not during.
This, of course, ignores any discussion about how we now generally understand the idea of a new nation to come into being, which seems to have been in effect during our Revolutionary War (War of Insurrection): acknowledgment by existing nation(s) of the emergence of a new one. That's one of the ways in which France was so important to our own revolution.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
I understand what you are saying, but remember this: If the states did not secede, then Virginia would have still been a state, thus making West Virginia's statehood unconstitutional.
Since West Virginia is a state, it follows that Virginia was not a state at the time. There is no other conclusion that can be reached. With that being the case, then the states did, in fact, secede.
You make a good point with respect to the War of 1776. Had Washington and his band lost the war, they would be what we call terrorists today. Since they won, they are heroes and patriots. (even though what they did was anything but patriotic, unless you consider armed rebellion to be patriotic)
It will be interesting to see what happens with respect to the Southwest. They are very near the tipping point, where over half of the population across several states are from a foreign country. If there is a path here to voting rights (as supported by the newest SCOTUS appointment and the Democrat party) and they vote to secede and form Aztlan, as La Raza, La Mecha, and other groups have proposed, we are seeing a historically interesting situation develop.
We live in interesting times.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
I understand what you are saying, but remember this: If the states did not secede, then Virginia would have still been a state, thus making West Virginia's statehood unconstitutional.
Since West Virginia is a state, it follows that Virginia was not a state at the time. There is no other conclusion that can be reached. With that being the case, then the states did, in fact, secede.
You make a good point with respect to the War of 1776. Had Washington and his band lost the war, they would be what we call terrorists today. Since they won, they are heroes and patriots. (even though what they did was anything but patriotic, unless you consider armed rebellion to be patriotic)
It will be interesting to see what happens with respect to the Southwest. They are very near the tipping point, where over half of the population across several states are from a foreign country. If there is a path here to voting rights (as supported by the newest SCOTUS appointment and the Democrat party) and they vote to secede and form Aztlan, as La Raza, La Mecha, and other groups have proposed, we are seeing a historically interesting situation develop.
We live in interesting times.
Well, it's certainly true that what we now call West Virginia did break away from Virginia during that time and was admitted to the Union as its own state. So what? That doesn't mean that Virginia had actually prevailed in its attempt to secede from the Union. The West Virginians simply refused to take part in the attempt to do so. Their admittance to the Union was a practical matter - it's better to have allies in war than enemies. Also, there are a lot of things from that era which weren't constitutional and yet still happened. Does that mean we should have retroactively expelled them (well, I guess you can't expel them if people had decided they were never a state) and made them again a part of Virginia?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But there's a problem here with the reasoning because of the remainder of the clause, which you didn't state.
It's that whole without the consent of the legislatures involved and the congress. Clearly, the legislature of West Virginia assented to, well what is essentially, its breaking away from Virginia. This line of reasoning cuts a bit against me, but I don't think the obstacle is insurmountable. So, they broke away from Virginia, which they perceived to have actually seceded from the Union. Whether or not Virginia had done so, the West Virginians believe it, so if it was error, perhaps it was a harmless one. I'm not really sure, and this would require quite a bit of thought.
And they clearly had the consent of the Congress, else they wouldn't have been admitted. So, the issue here is that of the Virginia legislature. I don't know what its take on West Virginia breaking away was, but I'll be doing some reading on that very topic!
So, all of that to say that what I've been typing here on this issue is at present a provisional line of thought. I'll have to get better informed about the happenings between the two states before I can render a more coherent thought.
About the Southwest, I think your fears are unfounded. It would be a bit odd to migrate to the country, take up residence in one of its states and then attempt to secede the country, irrespective of whether the federal government would actually permit that to happen.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
About the Southwest, I think your fears are unfounded. It would be a bit odd to migrate to the country, take up residence in one of its states and then attempt to secede the country, irrespective of whether the federal government would actually permit that to happen.
You would think, but do some reading on La Raza, La Mecha, and Aztlan. They believe that the land was stolen from them, ad they intend to take it back.
Here is the first line of the preamble of their National Constitution:
Quote:
Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
La Mecha and La Voz de Aztlan are not in the same realm as the organization of La Raza. La Raza appears to want to work within the government framework of the United States. The other two are a tad radical and outside college campuses they are rarely heard from except at the odd protest rally for other liberal/anarchist causes.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
La Raza appears to want to work within the government framework of the United States.
Like this fine piece of work?
Quote:
The Jews of California, about 3% of the state's population, have an overwhelming and disproportionate share of the state's wealth which they utilize effectively to wield immense influence on the state's political apparatus principally through dominance of the Democratic Party. Both U.S Senators of the state are ladies of Jewish descent and there is no sector of California society, either private or public, in which Jews are not significant policy makers. The sectors that they can not control directly, they will do it indirectly through the purchase of influence as well as the cunning manipulation of ethnic and other minorities.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
divemedic
That's not a publication of La Raza, it is an editorial from La Voz de Aztlan.
Th National Council of La Raza even went so far as to distance themselves from that tripe several years back:
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/42452/
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
I must admit that this thread is my first hearing of these organizations. I'm not sure if that bodes well or poorly for me. But I suppose I'll justify my ignorance for the elegant that I don't devote much of my time to fringe elements of society in particular, and crackpots in general.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
ashman165
I must admit that this thread is my first hearing of these organizations. I'm not sure if that bodes well or poorly for me. But I suppose I'll justify my ignorance for the elegant that I don't devote much of my time to fringe elements of society in particular, and crackpots in general.
In California and the southwest, La Voz de Aztlan and MEChA are very real facts of life. Small, but vocal and militant enough to be present in most every radical march, protest, or immigrant rally out here. And, their presence and influence can be felt on most college campuses.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
In California and the southwest,
La Voz de Aztlan and
MEChA are very real facts of life. Small, but vocal and militant enough to be present in most every radical march, protest, or immigrant rally out here. And, their presence and influence can be felt on most college campuses.
- Carl
Oh, then I'm relieved. I'm glad I live above such things (that's not a conceit; I'm demonstrably above it all since I'm in Washington and they're below me.) =P
We have a few odd organizations here in my area as well, but the upshot is that they're fronted by people who frequently engage in recreational anesthesia. While I'm not opposed to drug use (if that's your thing, so be it I guess.), I wouldn't necessarily pick a "pothead" as public face for my organization. Even if I were working on legalizing pot, let's say, I'd want to pick a straight-laced looking person simply to better market the product.
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Have you ever read the constitution? then the code? WOW! the code is impossible to remember all that you read. the constitution I remember alot more of as it is shorter and appeals to my sense of sanity. the code applies to corporations and federal employees, the constitution applies to the government in restricting it to just protecting the life freedom and property of the people. who are the people it is supposed to be protecting? don't know I read several different concepts of who the people were meant when it was first drafted and signed.
the us code is for revenue collecting. break the code and pay a fee, get thrown into debtors prison where some big shot is making a mint off your suffering and unjust punishment. try reading it sometime, it boggles the mind. it has so many go to this part of the code to get this definition, then it refers to another part and it goes on until you get lost. the constitution is understandable, I can't see for the life of me why the supreme court needs to interpret any of it, even I can understand enough to know whether if some law is passed or code whether it infringes on the life freedom or property of others or whether it is trampling on natural rights.
RRRR ohio
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Okay ... the Constitution ... alright, where does the Constitution codify murder? If you believe it does, where does the Constitution set out the penalty for that murder? What about theft? Fraud? DUI?
The US Code, and, indeed all statutes, ostensibly spell out the details to allow the Constitution to be enjoyed by all. When there is a conflict between Constitutional principles and the statutes, that is where the appellate courts get involved.
- Carl
-
Re: Constitution and U.S. Code
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Okay ... the Constitution ... alright, where does the Constitution codify murder? If you believe it does, where does the Constitution set out the penalty for that murder? What about theft? Fraud? DUI?
The US Code, and, indeed all statutes, ostensibly spell out the details to allow the Constitution to be enjoyed by all. When there is a conflict between Constitutional principles and the statutes, that is where the appellate courts get involved.
- Carl
It isn't my usual habit to either kick people when they're down, or laugh at those who've been sucked in by a gimmick. So, I won't do so here; however, Carl, you might want to re-read his words carefully and then check up on his others posts. You'll find, I believe, that pursuit to be most illuminating.