Lost in Translation Posted October 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Pilgrim said: In a way I can understand these infestations from foreign natiins. What I can’t understand are the home grown idiots in favor of this. This is why I encourage everyone to read the US Constitution, and this is why I started this thread. There is so much ignorance and misinformation out there. It's important to combat ignorance with wisdom, and misinformation with truth. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 15, 2018 3 hours ago, Pilgrim said: What I can’t understand are the home grown idiots in favor of this. Yeah, we even have one here in Florida who is running for office. Total Socialist, almost Communist. Florida is a Conservative state. Of course, I will be voting against him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 15, 2018 Article 3, section 1 Quote The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section1 Article 3 concerns the courts of the United States. Put simply the Constitution mandates there be one Superior Court and allows Congress the capacity to establish whatever lower courts it deems necessary. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 15, 2018 Article 3, section 2 Quote The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section2 Article 3, section 2 describes the function and jurisdiction of the courts. Quote In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction (bold is mine) Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court hears the case first, so any case involving foreign ambassadors, dignitaries, etc and all case involving one or more state are taken to the Supreme Court first. Appellate jurisdiction simply means second opinion or review, so a case can originate in a lower court and wind its way up to the Supreme Court via the appellate process. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 15, 2018 Article 3, section 3 Quote Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3 Some of the term here are a bit archaic. Attainder: extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason Corruption of Blood: the effect of an attainder which bars a person from inheriting, retaining, or transmitting any estate, rank, or title So the portion that states "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted" means that a person's land can be temporarily seized when convicted of treason but that the land does not become property of the US, but rather follows the normal rules of inheritance. If I had to guess this was to ensure that corrupt officials could not use charges of treason to steal their opponents' wealth. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) And this is all the Constitution has to say about the three branches of government. Article 4 addresses states' rights, article 5 addresses the amendment process, and articles 6 and 7 address the legality of the Constitution itself. After that we have the text of the amendments. The constitution is a pretty small document. We can (and will) cover the entire document with ease. I hope you are enjoying this. I am! Edited October 15, 2018 by Lost in Translation 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 16, 2018 Article 4, section 1 Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section1 Basically states must recognize the judgments of other states. For example, if a couple marry in one state then the other states must recognize the marriage, or if a business incorporates in one state then the corporation must be recognized in the other states. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 Article 4, section 2 Quote The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section2 Article 4, section 2 sets up the reciprocal relationship between states. Citizens of one state have all the rights and immunities of citizens of all states. It also establishes that the states will respect the rule of law in other states, and that a fugitive in one state who flees to another state is subject to extradition. Paragraph 3 pertains to the capture and extradition of escaped slaves and was eliminated by the 13th amendment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) Article 4, section 3 Quote New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3 Article 4, section 3 is interesting. This pertains to the creation of new states. You'll recall back in 1787 there were only thirteen states. The vast majority of the land mass in North America was unclaimed by any country, or was claimed but unprotected. The framers knew that new states would be added so they wrote rules into the Constitution for how to admit them. Notice the following item: Quote no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress Recall a while back when California was flirting with the idea of splitting into three states? Well, that idea was shot down, and it's no wonder why. Even if California decided to split itself it would still require the approval of Congress to do so, and why would 49 other states want California to split apart? Crazy talk! Edited October 17, 2018 by Lost in Translation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 Article 4, section 4 Quote 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section4 In a nutshell the states are free to govern themselves how they see if as long as they have a republican form of government. That's interesting. I did not realize this before. So I guess we won't see an Emperor of California or a King of New Jersey any time soon. Also, you'll see it's literally written into the Constitution that the US government must protect individual states against both foreign and domestic violence, that latter being if the Governor and/or State Legislature ask for help. This is all for the states. I told you this would move along quickly. Tomorrow we'll get into Article 5, the amendment process. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/16/2018 at 5:24 AM, Lost in Translation said: the land does not become property of the US, but rather follows the normal rules of inheritance. If I had to guess this was to ensure that corrupt officials could not use charges of treason to steal their opponents' wealth. Interesting in that with drugs this is different Quote But most states, including Illinois, allow the police to take private property they suspect was related to criminal activity, even without having to prove the owner of that property used it in a crime. This practice, known as civil asset forfeiture, has come under attack in recent years from Americans across the political spectrum. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted October 17, 2018 9 hours ago, Lost in Translation said: Also, you'll see it's literally written into the Constitution that the US government must protect individual states against both foreign and domestic violence, that latter being if the Governor and/or State Legislature ask for help. What if its the states government that is or becomes the mmm enemy? As what seems to be happening with sanctuary cities, states ect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, windwalker said: What if its the states government that is or becomes the mmm enemy? As what seems to be happening with sanctuary cities, states ect. There is nothing that can be done. Our Governments are not held accountable by the people. The people have been indoctrinated and educated to choose against their own best interests. The people are too busy fighting with each other, over asinine political party stance. Our so called representatives only represent their own interests and those of the wealthy (Of which I might add they are always a member of the wealthy otherwise they could never afford to run for office) (Hello closed loop) America is becoming a left wing democracy it has very attractive features. You have the wealthy elites on top and everyone else well here enjoy your tent. Take California for example. Here is the present state of things in California. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/rise-californias-tent-cities Edited October 17, 2018 by Pilgrim 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Pilgrim said: Our Governments are not held accountable by the people. The people have been indoctrinated and educated to choose against their own best interests. This is the real problem. It's why the framers built a republic and not a democracy, since in a democracy 50%+1 is enough to terrorize the other 50%-1, but in a republic - with the corresponding checks and balances - it is harder to effect sweeping change. Over time Americans have grown ignorant of the Constitution and ignorant of history and we see all around us the results. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) On 10/16/2018 at 3:30 PM, Lost in Translation said: Article 4, section 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section1 Basically states must recognize the judgments of other states. For example, if a couple marry in one state then the other states must recognize the marriage, or if a business incorporates in one state then the corporation must be recognized in the other states. This would seem to indicate that discriminating against- a license to practice law, do medicine , ,allow medical marijuana , ,carry a concealed weapon, abortion etc , should all be construed as unconstitutional . Essentially that the legal permissions of one state should apply in the others as well. Does that not seem a logical reading of the article? This would seem to enhance the freedoms of individuals in that they would only have to secure a judgement in one state for it to apply to all states. One could be allowed , say , recreational use of drugs in one state , and have the right to that same use everywhere! The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states Edited October 17, 2018 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, Stosh said: This would seem to indicate that discriminating against- a license to practice law, do medicine , ,allow medical marijuana , ,carry a concealed weapon, abortion etc , should all be construed as unconstitutional . Essentially that the legal permissions of one state should apply in the others as well. Does that not seem a logical reading of the article? This would seem to enhance the freedoms of individuals in that they would only have to secure a judgement in one state for it to apply to all states. One could be allowed , say , recreational use of drugs in one state , and have the right to that same use everywhere! The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states It does seem to imply that. I'm sure there are many documents detailing this over the last 231 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 22 minutes ago, Stosh said: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states Quote The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This clause protects fundamental rights of individual citizens and restrains state efforts to discriminate against out-of-state citizens. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause extends not to all commercial activity, but only to fundamental rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 17, 2018 52 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said: It does seem to imply that. I'm sure there are many documents detailing this over the last 231 years. 19 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause This leaves me confused, the Federalist papers are not part of the constitution. And only the wording which was amending the constitution is that which was agreed upon as being the constitution regardless of Hamiltons opinions on the matter. If it was to be read as only applying to the rights of slave holders then it could have Been written as such. This amendment hugely undermines states rights imposing a homogenaity. As long as slaves are property, this provision maintains the rights of ownership beyond a states border, but all the other privileges expressly are extended to the other ststes as well since there is no statement that the clause only applies to fundemental rights. A drug would be property , its use would be pursuit of a liberty related to possession, and so the protection would apply to drugs if it applies to slaves, anyway. This constitutional amendment has been unconstitutionally handled, or it was invalid to have been accepted. I wonder if a conservative justice rejects the amendment , or The laws proceeding from it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Stosh said: This leaves me confused, the Federalist papers are not part of the constitution. And only the wording which was amending the constitution is that which was agreed upon as being the constitution regardless of Hamiltons opinions on the matter. If it was to be read as only applying to the rights of slave holders then it could have Been written as such. This amendment hugely undermines states rights imposing a homogenaity. As long as slaves are property, this provision maintains the rights of ownership beyond a states border, but all the other privileges expressly are extended to the other ststes as well since there is no statement that the clause only applies to fundemental rights. A drug would be property , its use would be pursuit of a liberty related to possession, and so the protection would apply to drugs if it applies to slaves, anyway. This constitutional amendment has been unconstitutionally handled, or it was invalid to have been accepted. I wonder if a conservative justice rejects the amendment , or The laws proceeding from it. This poses an interesting question, and one that we have struggled with since day 1. Since the Constitution was written in common language (more or less) and not in "legalese", there are sections that seem quite vague. This is one of them. Quote Article IV of the the Articles of Confederation, ... stated that "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States . . . shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause This is probably a good indication of the meaning since the Articles of Confederation were in place at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) Im just not seeing what is ambiguous. It says ALL immunities and privileges. Nobody voted on the Federalist papers , if they had ,then the understanding could be ambiguous , but ,that not being the case,... the thing voted on as the amendment is clear as a bell. What article casts doubt on the word All? I read the comments already and nothing in them impacts the reading of the words as written. .... I said hamilton instead of madison ..error but that doesnt change the point that its not constitutional , its opinion only , and unvoted on. Edited October 17, 2018 by Stosh 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 17, 2018 I hear ya. I really do. Short of doing something that is illegal in one state but legal in another, getting arrested, and pushing the issue up to the Supreme Court I don't know what to say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Lost in Translation said: I hear ya. I really do. Short of doing something that is illegal in one state but legal in another, getting arrested, and pushing the issue up to the Supreme Court I don't know what to say. I am satisfied if you see the problem and stopped saying that there was vagueness that doesnt actually EXist. Our gov is behaving unconstitutionally . But I am not expecting you to fix it. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 18, 2018 4 hours ago, Stosh said: I am satisfied if you see the problem and stopped saying that there was vagueness that doesnt actually EXist. Our gov is behaving unconstitutionally . But I am not expecting you to fix it. I did some more research. https://legaldictionary.net/privileges-and-immunities-clause/ Quote The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution seeks to ensure all people of the nation can travel freely throughout the states, without being treated in a discriminatory manner. Although each state in the newly formed nation maintained its autonomy, citizens needed to be able to expect to have the same rights as the people who lived in each state. Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes this guarantee. The privilege and immunity applies to the rules of a state apropos its citizenry while within a state. This means that US citizens from another state are equal to citizens of a given state while in it. The law treats them equally. For example: Quote The state of Florida sets a sales tax of 7% on non-food items purchased within the state. Because Florida is a major hub of tourism in the United States, the state decides to charge a higher sales tax rate of 8% for non-Florida residents. While the state has a right to set taxes within its boundaries, the Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits treating people who do not reside in the state any differently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 18, 2018 So is this differential taxation constitutional? It would seem to me not to be since out of stateers have a different tax burden. And if I could practice law in maine , that would also be a commercial privilege that should be valid in Texas..or a gay marriage in ca should be valid in ga. No? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lost in Translation Posted October 18, 2018 25 minutes ago, Stosh said: So is this differential taxation constitutional? No, it is not. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
