Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Yes slavery was involved but A1S9 recognizes federal power over immigration in delaying it until later, it can either be taken that A1S9 grants that power or that the power was recognized as part of the law of nations like the article I linked to discusses.
Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:
https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
The Law of Nations is not in the US Constitution. It does not apply to the US. It grants no powers to the US government nor does it limit the US government. Congress could of course seek guidance from it when crafting immigration legislation if they wanted to.
A1S9 says that Congress could not pass any restrictions on slavery " prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight".
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-16-2018 at 06:22 PM.
When I take a bus from Canada to Chicago for vacation, have I invaded? If I come from London to attend school, have I invaded? If I go from Paris to New York to visit relatives, have I invaded? If I don't go home when I was supposed to, have I invaded? If I am offered a job with Google and come from Germany to do that job, have I invaded? (Half of those not legally in the country entered it legally- just didn't leave when they were supposed to).
What constitutes an "invasion"?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-16-2018 at 06:18 PM.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Thanks for that. Is immigration an "offense" in the "Law of Nations"?
https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm
The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.
Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:
(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.
(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.
(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.
(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.
(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,
(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
If, by voting, the majority is able to simply set aside the constitution, in what sense does "the constitution rule" in this arrangement?
Suppose there were a "monarchy," where the king is said to rule, but a majority of voters can do whatever they want, regardless of the king.
Does the king "rule" in any meaningful sense?
Or is that as silly as saying that "the constitution rules" in a democracy?
It takes more than just voting as I laid out, even if we take the legislators' votes for granted and the president's signature too because they are presumed to have run on the issue in question the courts are supposed find the law unconstitutional and the states are supposed to nullify it.
If people decide to disobey the ruling power in any system then it becomes no longer the ruling power but that doesn't mean every system is a democracy.
Last edited by Swordsmyth; 09-16-2018 at 09:21 PM.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
The Constitutional Amendment process is probably the most republican form of lawmaking in the US. It usually has to pass numerous State legislatures, and also US congress as well.
Results haven't always been good, there are a few lemon amendments that need to be gotten rid of, IMO.
...all of whom are ultimately responsible to voters (an alleged virtue of this system)
The point is that, in every system, it is people who rule, not papers.If people decide to disobey the ruling power in any system then it becomes no longer the ruling power but that doesn't mean every system is a democracy.
The "rule of [constitutional] law" is at best a myth: at worst a piece of propaganda intended to put a happier face on mob rule.
...which is what the universal suffrage "republic" is.
Except that if people commit to a Republican system they make the law the ruler instead of themselves just as those who commit to a monarchy make the king the ruler, all systems that don't involve routine bouts of anarchy that keep the losers in fear of the winners are dependent on people committing to someone or something else ruling and operating on that commitment by cooperating voluntarily with decisions by the ruler that they do not agree with.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Except they don't (See: this entire discussion)
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not have a pulse.Except that if people commit to a Republican system they make the law the ruler instead of themselves just as those who commit to a monarchy make the king the ruler
It is always someone, never something.all systems that don't involve routine bouts of anarchy that keep the losers in fear of the winners are dependent on people committing to someone or something else ruling and operating on that commitment by cooperating voluntarily with decisions by the ruler that they do not agree with.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
...it's people all the way down.
In the case of a Constitution the someones behind the something are the founders who wrote the Constitution and GOD who endowed man with the rights protected by it.
You will say that founders are dead and that GOD generally refrains from enforcing the Constitution and that therefore it requires men to enforce it but that is also true of the edicts of a living king, no king on earth is capable of enforcing his own decrees, instead he must rely on those who have committed themselves to his rule whether they always agree or not just like the Constitution depends on the same thing.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
IndeedYou will say that founders are dead and that GOD generally refrains from enforcing the Constitution and that therefore it requires men to enforce it
The king is not a piece of paper.but that is also true of the edicts of a living king
Sure, but that's beside the point.no king on earth is capable of enforcing his own decrees
It may be that whoever is the formal ruler (king, Senator, Congressman, judge, voter) does not really rule, in the sense that he is not entirely independent of outside influence, and must rely on the support of supporters, but, it remains the case that a piece of paper called a constitution does not rule in any sense, at all, ever, with or without supporters. That "the constitution rules" can only mean that the people who rule (king, Senator, Congressman...) happen to respect the constitution: as opposed to the Bible, the Koran, The Snows of Kilimanjaro, or Doctor Seuss. That the text-as-ruler can be seamlessly swapped out for something else, without violence, demonstrates that it never ruled; it was simply an inspiration for the people who rule.
There are a variety of possible forms of government, all of them defined by which person or persons rule.
Any talk of a constitution ruling, whether in a democracy, monarchy, or other form of government, is hogwash.
P.S. It's the same for ordinary law, by the way. There is no rule of law. The law does not sit in the courtroom and hand down verdicts; judges or juries do (and behind them, legislators). To the extent that "the rule of law" means anything, it means that the law is relatively stable and predictable. That is, people can expect similar legal problems to be resolved similarly. The opposite, arbitrariness, does not mean rule by man (which is always the case), but rather unpredictable rule by man.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-17-2018 at 06:08 PM.
The Constitution is a set of decisions that has been made permanently in advance by men who ran the country, a king makes decisions at the time they come up, their is no significant difference since both require other people to submit and cooperate whether they agree or not.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Note the tense of those verbs.
The rules are made by those who currently make the rules, not by those who at one time made the rules.
...it would be super if, once we had a moral government, they could magically bind their successors, but that isn't so.
Jefferson is dead; he isn't doing anything.
As do all rulers (when else would they make their decisions, before they came up...?)a king makes decisions at the time they come up
Yes, as I said, both democratic rulers and kings may require the cooperation of supporters to some extent.their is no significant difference since both require other people to submit and cooperate whether they agree or not.
I'm not arguing that one does and one doesn't.
The difference is, again, not between monarchy and democracy, but between either and constitutional government.
There is no such thing as the latter.
Constitutional democracy is democracy; constitutional oligarchy, oligarchy; constitutional monarchy, monarchy.
The presence or absence of a piece of paper purporting to limit the decision-making of the ruler(s) does not in fact limit his/their decision-making.
The decision-making of the ruler(s) is determined by his/their incentives.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-17-2018 at 06:25 PM.
Connect With Us