Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government

[johnwk]

Migration referred to the movement (trade) of slaves from one state to another. Importation referred to bringing in more slaves. If they brought in more slaves, they would be required to pay a head tax on each one of them. (I have a link above).

Our federal government is charged with protecting the United States against "invasions".


JWK

[Swordsmyth]

Read the link I posted earlier. The article goes into more detail.

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/

[Zippyjuan]

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/

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".

[Zippyjuan]

Our federal government is charged with protecting the United States against "invasions".


JWK

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"?

[Swordsmyth]

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.

A1
Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

[Zippyjuan]

A1
Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To...define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

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.

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks for that. Is immigration an "offense" in the "Law of Nations"?


https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

Do you even read what you post?

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

[r3volution 3.0]

In a republic the Constitution rules.

Is the US a republic?

[Swordsmyth]

Is the US a republic?

It is supposed to be.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is supposed to be.

That wasn't the question.

[Swordsmyth]

That wasn't the question.

It is a broken Republic if you want a current status report.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is a broken Republic if you want a current status report.

So it was once a republic?

If so, how it become not-a-republic?

[Swordsmyth]

So it was once a republic?

Yes.

If so, how it become not-a-republic?

People stopped following the Constitution.

[r3volution 3.0]

People stopped following the Constitution.

How could that happen in a republic, if, in a republic, "the constitution rules"?

[Swordsmyth]

How could that happen in a republic, if, in a republic, "the constitution rules"?

The same way an insurrection can happen in a monarchy where the king rules.

[r3volution 3.0]

The same way an insurrection can happen in a monarchy where the king rules.

The unconstitutional policies of the US government came about through insurrection?

So, for example, medicare and medicaid were implemented as a result of a pro-medicare/medicaid insurrection?

[Swordsmyth]

The unconstitutional policies of the US government came about through insurrection?

So, for example, medicare and medicaid were implemented as a result of a pro-medicare/medicaid insurrection?

Through disobedience to the ruling power, the Constitution in one case and the king in the other.

[r3volution 3.0]

Through disobedience to the ruling power, the Constitution in one case and the king in the other.

In the case of the king, the "disobedience to the ruling power" consisted in violent revolution: in the case of the constitution, voting, no?

...e.g. voting for politicians who would implement medicare/medicaid?

[Swordsmyth]

In the case of the king, the "disobedience to the ruling power" consisted in violent revolution: in the case of the constitution, voting, no?

...e.g. voting for politicians who would implement medicare/medicaid?

Voting by the citizens, voting by the legislators, signing by the president and ruling by the courts.

[RonZeplin]

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"?

You seem to have a cornucopia of invasion plans. I predict that you'll be very happy with President Trump's DACA+ amnesty.

If you liked Ronald Reagan's amnesty package, you're gonna love The Donald's.

[r3volution 3.0]

Voting by the citizens, voting by the legislators, signing by the president and ruling by the courts.

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?

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[RonZeplin]

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

It takes more than just voting as I laid out, even if we take the legislators' votes for granted and the presidents signature too be cause 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.

...all of whom are ultimately responsible to voters (an alleged virtue of this system)

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 point is that, in every system, it is people who rule, not papers.

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.

[Swordsmyth]

...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.

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except that if people commit to a Republican system they make the law the ruler

Except they don't (See: this entire discussion)

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

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not have a pulse.

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.

It is always someone, never something.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

...it's people all the way down.

[Swordsmyth]

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.



It is always someone, never something.

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

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

Indeed

but that is also true of the edicts of a living king

The king is not a piece of paper.

no king on earth is capable of enforcing his own decrees

Sure, but that's beside the point.

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.

[Swordsmyth]

Indeed



The king is not a piece of paper.



Sure, but that's beside the point.

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.

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

The Constitution is a set of decisions that has been made permanently in advance by men who ran the country

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.

a king makes decisions at the time they come up

As do all rulers (when else would they make their decisions, before they came up...?)

their is no significant difference since both require other people to submit and cooperate whether they agree or not.

Yes, as I said, both democratic rulers and kings may require the cooperation of supporters to some extent.

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.