MODERATOR NOTE: These posts were moved from the "Great Analogy of the US National Debt" thread as they were taking the thread off topic. They were moved with the consent of those involved in the discussion. Shiva_TD Site Moderator ********************************************************************************************************************* An interesting historical point in that the US purchased Louisiana and Alaska from political entities that didn't own either but we'll put that aside for now. Of course the US didn't actually purchase the land but instead purchased the "authority to govern" those territories. We can also refer to the US Constitution as to what "land" the federal government is allowed to own. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/ When a territory becomes a State all of the land within the territorial bounderies become a part of the State and the federal government forfeits any authority over those lands except as provided for under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Excluding the ten miles set aside by cession for our federal government (i.e. Washington DC) the only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States, approved by the State legislature, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" which makes BLM lands and National Parks unconstitutional. BLM lands and National Parks are unrelated to Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings and they were not purchased from the States with the approval of the State legislatures in compliance with Article I Section 8.
You see there is an operative phrase, "the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be." You see this sentence is just that, one sentence in law, with a semicolon before it and at the end: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And" "Same shall be" does not apply to every State, only the District that is NOT a State for a reason; such that no State legislature can control Congresspeople by intimidation. Please NOTE, in "Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, the word "State" is no plural. If there was a semicolon between "become the Seat of the Government of the United States" and "and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State," and no phrase "in which the Same shall be," then you would be correct, but as it is the sentence only applies to the creation of the District ("in which the Same shall be") and has no force in law outside of that specific initial transaction. This is how it would have to be worded for you to be correct: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States; To exercise Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the Particular States, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And" So, no insult intended, you need to go back and take English 101 and Government 101. Lets go further: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The State does not own private property, so they do not have to be compensated and they are respresented, so the US government, and the State's gubermints through their Senate representation, still have the power of eminent domain. It is "UNITED" States, not a State has exclusive eminent domain and the States do not. PS. Are you getting this crap from Ron Pods?
Two separate issued are being addressed in Article I Section 8 related to the ownership of land by the US government and they are clearly separated by the word "and" in this clause. The first, highlighted in blue, is the seat of government which is Washington DC. The second, highlighted in purple, are the other lands that must be purchased from a State (not "States" as "States" don't own common real estate) and those purchases must be approved the "Legislature of the State in which the Same (real estate) shall be" and that these land purchases are expressly limited to the "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" of the federal government. BLM lands and National Parks are not lands being used for Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" nor were they purchased from the State in which these BLM lands and National Parks exist.
There are no two separate issues in the sentence, due to the "and," as it is one sentence dealing with one issue. The Subject of the sentence is the "District," also the "Same." The capitalized word "Same" refers to the State the "District" is in, not any other States. The word "Same" is a noun, that is why it has a big letter in front, it is the "District." Simply English 101.
"Section 8" deals with the powers of Congress, and "Section 9" would be where you would find the prohibitions to have National Parks... If you were correct, there would be a "No" this and "No" that to back you up.
In other words you cannot defend ten square miles without "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" around it. It is a unique situation, and it would be all cluttered up if the "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" had to be within the District.
A rewording: "and to exercise like Authority ["To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever"], over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;" It is a unique situation, which requires "like Authority," and obviously if there was no "Consent of the Legislature of the State" they could have taken the entire State for a massive military camp.
Once again we can also highlight "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" as it relates to all federal lands excluding Washington DC which was not purchase but instead ceeded by the States for the seat of the federal government. All other lands have to be purchased by the Federal government from the States with the consent of the Legislature of those States and those lands can only be used for the specified purposes.
The Sentence is dealing with ONE SUBJECT, the District, and what is related to that District, there is no prohibition in Section 9 prohibiting Congress from buying land or from States ceding more land. It was a unique sentence dealing only with the Subject of the District. This is simply bull: "only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States," National Geographic "America's Federal Lands" September 1982, Map: "Most of these regions became part of a vast public domain that grew to encompass nearly two billion acres. Over the years the federal government gave away or sold more than half of this land, primarily to states as they joined the Union, to railroads reaching westward, and to homesteaders settling the broad frontier." It was done, because nothing whatsoever in the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government's exclusivity on treaty. All other lands, dealing with the District, I repeat dealing with the District, have to be purchased by the Federal government from the States with the consent of the Legislature of those States, because those lands can only be used for the specified purposes of the District, and they specified that in those lands Congress has power "to exercise like Authority ["To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever"]." All lands not in those States were fair game only for the Federal Government, TO DO WITH AS WE (*)(*)(*)(*) WELL PLEASE, because since "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation," therefore, the States could not expand into other territory. The States could not purchase or accept land from France or Russia or the Indians, or no illegal Washington State squatter, as that would require "treaty." Feel free to look the word "treaty" up if you feel it only applies to wars. Thank God and old fart founders who were educated to read the real English language, because if the "only lands the US government is authorized to possess and control are lands sold to it by the States" was true, this country would have 13 States and Washington State would be flying a Soviet flag... You sure you are not a Commie agent of a foreign power, or maybe a double agent for the Obamanation hoping to be more flexible in returning the Russian colonies after your third party elects him? According to your argument Washington State is not able to exist; what was it, part of New York?
Herein lies the fundamental problem that the Federalists said didn't exist and which the anti-Federalists warned against. The US Constitution is a contract drawn up and approved by the original 13 colonies/states and it follows contract law. A contract must enumerate that which it covers, authorizes and the conditions of the contract. Contracts are inherently limited by that which the address through enumeration. Article I Section 8 enumerates the needs of land ownership for the federal government and how those lands are to be acquire. It specifically enumerates that the US government requires land for a central location of the government (i.e. Washington DC) as well as land for "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" and those are the only lands that are enumerated as being necessary for the Federal government. It didn't, for example, state that the federal government required a tropical island for pleasure vacations. The federal govenrment has no need of a tropical island for pleasure vacations in providing for the other roles and responsibilities enumerated in the US Constitution. Article I Section 8 also has the following provision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/ I won't list all of the "foregoing Powers" or "all other Powers" vested in the US Constitution but instead will ask where in the US Constitution is it required for the US goverment to own tropical island solely intend for pleasure or of a national park solely intended for pleasure or for BLM lands that it uses for commerical purposes. Show me where in the US Constitution there is any need for the US government to have National Parks or BLM lands. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
There does not have to be a need for a right to exist, We the People could simply want a National Park on Mars or Territory or other Property. There does not have to be an enumeration of every potential need, the provision to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" includes just about anything not specifically prohibited in Section 9. There is no enumeration for a kill zone or territorial waters or Air Space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territory#Maritime_territory_of_the_United_States By all means, show me where in the US Constitution there is any need for the US government to have Territorial waters? Article I Section 8 enumerates the needs of the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" over land for the "Seat of the Government of the United States" and only how those lands for the District are to be acquired. Intent wise it only shows that the Republican form of government of the States is preserved, they still retain sovereignty over their lands even for the purpose of creating the District, but not jurisdiction over the District or the support structures outside of it which are for it after it is ceded. There does NOT have to be anything in the US Constitution for "any need for the US government to have National Parks or BLM lands," to have them. "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." (Article IV Section 3.) People have the right of self-determination, and in Article IV Section 3. it says, "no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State," so IMO the US government could not take State land in any way, from it being ceded for the purpose of the District or a National park, and then ever allow people to live there and ever allow them to form a State within that land "without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." The District for that reason can never be made a State, without IMO the consent of the States that ceded the land for one purpose, which was for the District, and if Maryland and Congress wanted DC to be a State then the "Seat of the Government of the United States" MUST be moved. Enumerated powers in Section 8, for the District, are different than prohibitions in Section 9, and without prohibitions in Section 9 or an Amendment specifically prohibiting the US from possessing and controling lands acquired through purchase, treaty, or even conquest, there is nothing preventing "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." That phrase "Territory or other Property" does not in any way suggest it only includes "only lands... sold to it by the States." And "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States" to have "Territory or other Property," which it has "Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting" it.
Many interesting points that circle the issue but that don't actually address it. Let me point out some flaws in the logic. First of all in the US Constitution when referring to the United States it is referring to the States and not to the federal government. This clause is referring to territories owned by the States, all of the States. It is not referring to a territory such as Puerto Rico where the federal has adminstrative authority and the United States does not "own" Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico belongs to the citizens and residents of Puerto Rico. The US simply provides governing authority and defense for the People of Pueto Rico by treaty agreement. The identical situation existed related to the Lousiana Purchase and the Purchase of Alaska where, by treaty, the federal government of the United States assumed adminstrative justidiction over those territories which belonged the the citizens and residents of those territories. Yes, in these instances the Constitution does allow the federal government to impose "Rules and Regulations" which relate to adminstrative jusidiction but that does not establish ownership. Territorial waters fall into a similiar situation as the waters in question rightfully belong to the State and not to the US government. Under the US Constitution the States have authorized the federal government the power to defend those waters but the "property rights" remain with the State. If, for example (albeit very hypothetical) the US Congress and a State legislature decided to desolve the Statehood of a State, such as California, by mutual consent (which they have the power to do as any contractual agreement can be nullified by mutual consent) then the territorial waters of California would obviously belong to California because those waters have always belonged to California. They are a part of California. The statement "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States" is used but intentionally omitted was "or of any particular State" because in the use of "United States" all of the States, not the federal government, are being referenced but it doesn't require a claim of all of the States but, in fact, even one State can make a claim. Today that would be "one State or up to all 50 States" can make a claim. The federal government cannot make such a claim nor can it reflect any prejudice related to the claims of anywhere from one to all fifty States in the law. ******* STOP ******** As a member I'm certainly enjoying this discussion but as a moderator I realize that this thread drift has really taken us off topic. By mutual consent we can request that a moderator (e.g. myself) take selected posts and create a new thread to continue this discussion. I believe that is what should be done. Moderators do have the power to do this by moving multiple posts to a different place. If we can agree that this discussion is worthwhile (and enjoyable) which I believe to be the case then I'd ask that the relevant posts be identified by number and I'll move them to create a new thread under the United States forum. Sound like a good idea? I believe this line of discussion is excellent because we must both do our Constitutional homework to support our opinions. Otherwise we really need to end this discussion here and get back to the actual topic of the thread which resolves around the national debt. Shiva_TD Site Moderator
I would question this statement. We've basically had two fundamental tax reductions, one which existed before the recession of 2008 that was scheduled to expire and one that has been added since the recession. The Bush era tax cuts were a limited tax rate reduction that was scheduled to end. Had they been allowed to expire, as had been established by Congress when they were passed, it would have added $370 billion in federal revenues. Instead of allowing them to expire as scheduled they were extended. We can logically argue that they should have been repealed under the Bush adminstration when we began the run deficits that virtually doubled the national debt and cannot provide any logical reason why they should be extended. Remember that when they were passed the Congress and President both promised that we would still have a surplus but that suplus never materialized because Congress increased spending. Next we have the reductions in the FICA/Payroll taxes that are being replaced with funding from general revenues. This isn't really a "tax cut" because the funds have to be replaced by general revenue sources.... but we don't have the general revenue sources to replace those tax revenues. Both of these tax reductions only relate to those that are working today and those that are working are not the problem with the US economy and all of us that are working today can afford to pay these taxes. If we can afford to pay the taxes then we can't argue that they shouldn't be paid. Between the two of them I believe that the increased federal revenue would be well over $500 billlion/yr. The 2012 budget deficit would have been reduced from $1.3 trillion to only $800 billion and the proposed 2013 budget by both Romney/Ryan and Obama would be reduced from almost $900 billion to less than $400 billion and this would all be accomplished by working Americans that CAN AFFORD TO PAY THE TAXES. That would leave only $400 billion in expendature reductions required to reach a balanced or surplus budget. When we're looking at a proposed budget of over $3.3 trillion or more the reduction in federal expendatures of less than 12%. A 12% reduction in expendatures is not draconian by any standard. Simple stopping being the World Police would allow the US military to cut that much in spending although it would logically be spread across other federal expendatures and not simply imposed as DOD budgetary cuts. People that say we can't balance the budget and even create a surplus in 2013 are full of BS and it doesn't even require draconian tax increases or budgetary reductions.
Sounds reasonable. Mine were: #226 #228 #229 #230 #231 #233 #237 And certainly include what you said in #238: "First of all in the US Constitution when referring to the United States it is referring to the States and not to the federal government..." Just be sure to link to to the new topic here so I can find it.
I might have to eat my words on this claim as I can find instances where the term United States refers to both the government of the United States as well as referring to all of the individual States in the Constitution. For example in the Tenth Amendment it refers to the United States and it's referring to the powers of Congress when it refers to the United States but in Article I Section 8 when it refers to "providing for.... the general Welfare of the United States" it's referring to the individual States as a whole. By way of example the United States (government) provided for the general Welfare of the United States (all individual States) by establishing time zones predominately for railroads under the "commerce clause" of Article I Section 8. Live and learn which is the beauty of Political Forum. We must look up that which we claim if we are to provide a foundation for our political arguments. Normally the US Constitution is very explicit in the use of terms (e.g. the difference between "people" which is all people and "citizen" which is a sub-group of "people) but this appears to be an exception to that rule.
I do not think there is any question as to the "might have." "First of all in the US Constitution when referring to the United States it is referring to the States and not to the federal government." That was the first time I have come across that one. I would not put is past a "liberal" to want to change the definition of words or to combine "Libertarian" and "Socialist" like Chomsky, or to change the rules of English to make a law no longer mean what it says. A case in point where "liberals" would create meaning, that the people have no right unless they are in a well regulated Militia: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Commas can have legal implications, and rewordings of sentences with commas might give some meaning if they retain sense: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. There the subject is clearly the Militia, but if the intent was to only have a well regulated Militia then it does not take into account the possibility of an oppressive State that has deprived a large segment of its population the right to be in the Militia. So we have a need for: "Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Let's get back to your statement where the phrase "United States" is referring to the States: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article 1 Section 1) http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt Just go there and "highlight all" instances of "United States" and the absurdity of your statement become apparent, it also becomes apparent when we "highlight all" references to "Legislature" since the States do not have to have a Congress with a House of Representatives and Senate; the two forms of government one consisting of a "House of Representatives and Senate" and the other simply a "Legislature," clearly distinguishes between the United States' government and the States' government. "The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant..." (Washington's Farewell Address 1796) There simply is no way to interpret that statement as being consentent with yours. ****** The idea that the US government is a contracted entity of the States does not fit with the design of the US government. The Senate represents the States, they have the greater sovereign power of advising and consenting and making treaties and removing the heads of kings and princes, but any contract that then splits the State's power into fractions or factions could not be said to represent them. The House of Representatives represents cities, rural areas, the poor, the rich, the industrial regions and the agricultural regions, the smart and the stupid on the other side of the tracks, irrespective of whether the cities or the rural areas are the bastion of any particular fraction; the House of Representatives represents the fractions of the States--such fractions may or may not find common ground, whatever those fractions may be--not the States. It is for the reason George Washington gave his famous admonition against he artful dominion of Party factions. The States do not possess the United States' government, if they did the Congress would not be bicameral. ****** Considering all that is said here in this post, the bicameral nature of our US government, lets consider the rights of the people not represented by the "patrician" body of the Senate; you said: "Under the US Constitution the States have authorized the federal government the power to defend those waters but the 'property rights' remain with the State." It is quite possible that the "plebian" or House of Representatives' body could vote for offshore drilling in so-called Florida waters, and the the "patrician" body of the Senate including Nelson and Martinez voted against it. Is it not more the matter of faction being the Senate is Democrat and the House Republican, than a matter of State's Rights? "The following year, U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, proposed allowing drilling as close as 50 miles from shore. He got 13 other Florida Republicans to go along and the measure passed the House. But it died in the Senate, largely because of the work of Nelson, a Democrat, and Mel Martinez, a Republican. Eventually, a compromise opened 8.3 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and allowed exploration 125 miles south of the Panhandle but banned drilling within 234 miles of the Tampa Bay area through 2022." http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/article1084532.ece We might assume that is the Senate, the State exercising its so-called property rights. But, those of us who had to vote for Nelson, we in Florida remember Jeb Bush first wanting to drill here and then when there was a backlash, changed his mind and "W" and Congress went along with a bigger section off limits. The Plebian body whose powers are not in any way representative of States wants more drilling, "drill here, drill now," and the Senate does not, but could it not be the other way around? The State cannot say it has a 234 mile property right because the States are specifically forbidden to make treaties, what rights they have is kind of explained here: "Congress then definitively confirmed title to the submerged lands and the natural resources beneath such submerged lands to the states[12] and relinquished all right, title and interest the United States had in these submerged lands." http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/E2D8E00068ACF5EE8525622F004AA168 I submit that link because I bet our Florida Attorney General is better looking than yours. Other than that, why did "Congress" have to do anything? "thence northeastwardly to a point three leagues from the mainland;" http://www.law.fsu.edu/crc/conhist/1868con.html If "the 'property rights' remain with the State" then the State itself would have the right to expand those rights far enough out to prevent polluting States like that of DEMOCRAT Mary Landrieu's to soil our beaches. The "No" zone off our shore with regard to drilling appears not to be so much of our State's Right to expand territory, but is a gift: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/no-zones.jpg When DEMOCRATS like Mary Landrieu get all cheeky they start the same crap on the East Coast, watch us scream, but will we be able to get a 50 mile, 125 mile, or 234 mile buffer just from our rights, our ability to amend our Constitution to increase more than three leagues from the mainland, or will it be the United States that says what our State's Rights are? ****** The EPA is an example of needed power, a power that would not have been realised by our Founders who were more concerned with taxes than the loss of trees so big they took centuries to make; environmental protection--something Feudal nations like Japan's "Monkey" Emperor, a needle seller, long before we even existed realized was needed to prevent the loss of trees--is a power derived purely from the "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States." Whereas some people might come up with ways to have Red State and Blue State Health care, Social Security and so forth, through State compacts approved of by Congress so a mostly Libertarian State could be free of such social programs, is simply having some compassion that is not demanded of the UNION. Insisting that the US Government or United States has no right to purchase new property, or acquire it through treaty or other sovereign means, which has to be exclusively the right of the Federal treaty making power, and to turn it into National Parks...or manage National natural resources for the General Welfare, is just too weird. Like say for instance "the 'property rights' remain with the State" and the EPA should be a State function, then Republican environmentalists in Florida should be able to ban drilling within 234 miles of our shores, and not have to be begging for protection from DEMOCRAT Mary Landrieu's supported polluting of our beaches. ****** Yep, the entire point of such a forum is to live and learn. Every time I dig I learn something.
A well thought out argument so I will pick and choose that which I will address and limit myself to one thing at a time. As is noted the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article 1 Section 1). This is one issue where I wish the authors had been more specific because, as note, in other places such as the 10 Amendment when referring to the Congress of the United States the Amendment just states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." and that implies the federal government. If, on the other hand, the term "United States" only refers to the Federal government then the, "provide for the.... general Welfare of the United States" doesn't seem to make any sense. Is the federal government only to provide for the general welfare of the government of the United States? Or is the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the sovereign States that comprise the United States. Is this term used to designate the federal government or the individual States that comprise the United States of America? I believe the usage implies that it's referring to all of the individual States that comprise the United States as is reflected in the later enumerated Rolls and Responsibilities of Congress in Article I Section 8. For example, providing for a post office and postal roads, to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, and to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States all relate to providing for the welfare of the States that comprise the United States and don't provide for the "welfare of the government" of the United States. Additionally we can look at the 14th Amendment and it is obviously referring to the individual States that comprise the United States when it establishes the criteria for natural born citizens when it states, All persons born..... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." A person born in any State is a citizen of all the States under the 14th Amendment. This reference has absolutely nothing to do with the government of the United States as natural born citizenship is not subject to the legislative control of Congress. Congress is expressly limited to establishing citizenship through naturalization laws as granted by Article I Section 8. So I do see duel usage of the term in the US Constitution. I don't believe this is an attempt to change the meaning but instead to understand that the context establishes the difference. I do agree with the position that some try to change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment because it is comprised of a dependent and an independent clause. The dependent clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," can be disregarded completely as it merely provides one of numerous reasons why the independent clause, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" exists. Often "reasons" are given for something but the reasons given are not the only reasons, such as in this case, but instead are the one's deemed most important. Protecting my home from an armed intruder intent on killing me is another equally good reason for my right to keep and bear arms but it was not enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't invalidate is as a reason. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/
Those are good questions. "Is the federal government only to provide for the general welfare of the government of the United States?" No. But, it might see a need to provide for the general welfare of government officials in the District; a donative from the government to The Praetorian Guard around the District might be necessary; for Obama that might be Democratic voting Bunny Ranch prostitutes for his guards. {a little humor} "Is the federal government to provide for the general welfare of the sovereign States that comprise the United States?" No, we must provide for more than just the the general welfare of the sovereign States: hence citizens not of a State (Puerto Ricans...) pay Social Security...taxes. "Is this term used to designate the federal government or the individual States that comprise the United States of America?" No to both. The term "United States" seems to represent more than just to provide for the general welfare of the Union of sovereign States, and includes that which is not yet part of a State, which is currently under the jurisdiction of the United States Government; it provides for the general welfare of the government of the United States in the District and its support structures; the term "United States" designates the federal government of the UNION of States (not to be confused with just a Senate, more explanation to follow), and the District, that comprise the United States of America; due to the bicameral nature of our US government there is no "individual" to the Union's components, as the United States of America's House of Representatives does not represent individual States in any way whatsoever. "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." Say for instance there is no "general welfare" in a Federal school voucher so a kid can go to a religous school, but there is a general welfare in promoting education standards and funding education. Consider Democratic Hive Mind Hillary Clinton's speech in Africa at a Democracy conference, where she talked about school vouchers being against "competent citizens;" whereas education standards may be in the purview of the delegated powers under "general welfare" of the United States, whether they also get religious instruction at the same time is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Puerto Ricans are citizens, but not of a State, and they have no vote. They have taxation without representation. The District citizens have no voting rights in the United States for a reason, that MUST be that way; if they don't like it, they can move. Is not the status as a territory under the purview of the United States government, and we assume their own government under the United Nations treaty (we cannot just keep them against their will), through legislation? If so then the phrase "as natural born citizenship is not subject to the legislative control of Congress," would appear to be somewhat incorrect, as we could turn off their right to be born citizens by turning them loose. Since: "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"; Since "the United States of America's House of Representatives does not represent individual States in any way whatsoever"; Therefore, there are places subject to United States jurisdiction that are NOT States, and individual States do NOT comprise the United States, consequently, there can be no duel use involving the term "United States." I do not see a duel usage of the term "United States" in the US Constitution. More than one argument worded differently is sometimes best to get a point across. Since the context of the bicameral nature of our US government consisting of a Senate for the States and a House that represents fractions that exist across State boundaries, therefore, your phrase that "the usage implies that it's referring to all of the individual States that comprise the United States" is incorrect, consequently, it represents individual States and fractions that cross State boundaries and have no allegiance to State issues. For example, I am just slapping this together, maybe we have more agricultural States than industrial States, and agricultural State's interests might include competition with industrial States or promotion of getting away from so much agriculture and pushing people into factories and high tech. So the States may want only more industral programs, or evil revenue sharing for that purpose, and not agricultural programs, and yet the districts in those States want agricultural programs and the industrial States may want it to (so the South will never rise again)..., so the House votes for agriculture programs (because of the treasonous districts in their States) and the Senate either compromises or gets nothing. In the process of compromise between the Senate and the House the nature of the United States changes from individual States to individuals (who want to rise again) plus Union. The bicameral nature of our US government means the individual States DO NOT comprise the United States, the "more perfect Union" does.
This is also a fun one to address. First of all let's note that there is no Constitutional requirement that the Representatives come from "congressional districts" as that is solely an issue for the State legislature to determine. For example a State can decide to abolish all congressional districts and simply elect representatives based upon a vote of all of the registered voters in the State. As an example, if a State has ten representatives all candidates can be put on a statewide ballot and the top ten would become the representatives in Congress. Many, such as many libertarians, actually advocate this form or election for House representatives because it eliminates the control by the Democrats and Republicans. A Libertarian candidate has little hope of winning in a district but could finish high enough to be elected in a state-wide vote. Also of note is that originally senators were not subject to a popular vote nor has the president ever been subjected to a popular vote based upon the US Constitution. Originally senators were appointed by the state legislature and the selection of members of the Electorial College that vote for the president has always been a discretion of the state legislature. A state legislature could select the State's Electorial College member by lottery if they wanted to. But this addresses the internal structure of the federal government and the organizationals structure of our government. To understand the structure of our government we must address how it was formed and who holds ultimate authority. In 1787 a Constitutional Convention was called by the 13 Soverign Nations (i.e. States) that existed at the end of the Revolutionary War and that were loosely held together by the Articles of Confederation which was, in reality, a treaty of mutual defense between these Sovereign nations (States). At that convention they literally created a contract that was called the US Constitution which went further than just the mutual defense treaty that the Articles of Confederation represented. The States were willing to give up some of their individual sovereignty to secure the benefits of joining together but they never gave up all sovereignty. The only gave up that which was expressly stated in the "contract" that was the US Constitution. This is the foundation for the duel sovereignty often noted in Supreme Court decisions and which is expressed in the 10th Amendment. The "People" never voted on accepting the US Constitution. This was exclusively handled by the State government and there was no popular vote. Even today the People have absolutely no say on any laws passed by Congress and the People have no voice in the proposal of amendments or the ratification of amendments to the Constitution. The federal government cannot amend the Constitution but is limited to submitting amendments to the State legislatures for ratification. The States, on the other hand, can call for a Constitutional convention at any time and can amend or even abolish the US Constitution based upon 3/4ths of the representatives from the States at that convention under Article V. The federal government cannot stop this process as it is a part of the "contract" created by the States. While we haven't had a Constitutional Convention since 1787 the States, at anytime, can call for one and can abolish the entire US government by a simple vote where 3/4ths of the States agree. The absolute control of the US government still resides with the States under the Constitution.
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_ticket http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2c {Sinking ad blacks it out} Never actually debated the issue, ever, especially with regard to constitutionality. Living in occupied territory pretty much means any general ticket for congress would eliminate John Lewis, who I have met (did a Petition for Writ of Certiorari once to keep out of his district, back when my representative was Newt, not for long though, that is what got him shooting over to another district), or my all time favorite Cynthia McKinney who moved to a (*)(*)(*)(*) Yankee State. So I am all ears on this one. I am mostly only aware of challenges to gerrymandering, not congressonal districts existence vs. general ticket. I have never lived in State that ever had such a selection, and it looks on inspection to have only been a vary small number. Anyway, the odds of diversity of representatives whether in a state-wide vote or otherwise increases with number. I am not so sure you are correct about Libertarians having a better chance in a state-wide vote. Just looking at the black representatives and Senators and other state-wide elections in the South would seem to make that one basic premise questionable; for that reason touching the subject might bring in lots of comments accusing of racism for wanting it. We certainly have more Libertarian minded local or districtly voted for members than state-wide.
I don't have any historical foundation for a state electing house members simply based upon a statewide election as opposed to districting but I do believe that it did exist early in American history. Obviously there's been a problem with gerrymandering which is inherent when politicans are the ones creating Congressional districts. This problem is actually becoming worse today because analysis of voting is much easier with computers. As for why eliminating Congressional districts would increase the likelihood of third party candidates it's a matter of simple logic. If we have ten Congressional seats and three parties we assume ten members of both the Republican and Democratic party to be running. Each party wants all of the seats. There is going to be one favorite Democrat and one favorite Republican and perhaps only one third party candidate. These three candidates are going to receive the vast majority of the votes from their party members. The favorite third party candidate is probably going to receive more votes than the lessor members of the D's & R's because they will receive almost unanimous support from their party members. The third party candidate's vote isn't going to be split and will almost always exceed the vote for the lessor D's & R's. This would bring diversity to the House which is obviously missing today. Once agian the key is that the US Constitution leaves the matter of voting for House members to the State legislature (so long as it's a popular vote) just as it leaves the matter of selecting Electorial College members to the State legislature (and no popular vote is required). There is not now nor has there ever been a Constitutional requirement for a popular vote for the president. In one sense I'd like to see the popular vote for president eliminated completely. It's turned into a partisan popularity contest where the voters are generally unininformed related to the candidates.
Forgive me for editing the post down to this but trying to address the issues item by item becomes problemantic. Here are some points to consider. First of all while we can debate whether the term United States refers to the Government of the United States or to the all of the Individual States being addressed as a whole or in part I believe there is ample evidence of both based upon context. What we can't argue is the clearly estabalished fact that the Constitution is very specific and when it refers to the United States it is not referring to the People, Persons or Citizens as those "words" have specific definitions and usage in the Constitution. This is where "progressive" interpretations of the Constitution fail. Article I Section 8 states that the US government is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and it does not state "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the People of the United States." The interests of the States, which under State Constitutions do have delegated roles and responsibilities related to providing for the general Welfare of the People, is different than what is required to provide for the general Welfare of the States themselves. Providing for common coinage and standard weights and measure benefits the States as prior to the US Constitution each State had it's own coinage and created it's own standards of weigths and measure. This provision benefited all of the States as it relieved them of responsibilities that often conflicted with other States. Congress, under Article I Section 8 is limited to defining "naturalization" and a person born in Puetro Rico is not a natural born citizen (citizenship established BY birth) of the United States. Congress does not have that authority, period. Congress can, by naturalization, make them a native born citizen (citizenship established AT birth), Regardless of Congressional opinion, John McCain was a "native born" citizen based upon the naturalization laws passed by Congress but was never a "natural born" citizen because he was born in Panama and not the United States. John McCain was a "natural born" citizen of Panama and a "native born" citizen of the United States. A person cannot be a "natural born" citizen of two different countries. Barack Obama, on the other hand, was a natural born citizen of the United States but could also have been a native born citizen of Britain because his father was British. He never applied for native born citizenship in Britian but he could have at age 21 as I understand it. One point, if Pueto Rico becomes an independent nation (which I advocate) then the People of Puerto Rico are all Puerto Rico citizens and not US citizens. Additionally they would lose any "social security" benefits that they've been paying for through taxes if, indeed, those taxes are being collected. The United States does not own Puerto Rico but merely has adminstrative control over it. One point, we're not discussing the acts of Congress but instead the Constitution. Hey, gotta run. Things to do and people to see but I'll be back for more.
It did. I rechecked my last post and Georgia did use that method heavily prior to the Civil War, so I left my mistatement because I was not alive then. I am not so sure Newt would have been a representative if Zig Zag Zell's State had that old constitutional plan of electing representatives. It was under Zig Zag Zell that the Democrats tried to gerrymander Newt out by watering down John Lewis's district; the writ I sent was arguing that John Lewis's district had no comparable issues to the more rural district of Newt. Gerrymandering would evaporate, but due to race issues I think the method is dead in the water even if it appears the constitution does not specifically support districts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution Shiva, just a comment on some of your discussion with 'Devine' which is somewhat interesting. The meanings of "provide" and "promote" had distinctive differences in those days to those of today, but nowhere at any time was the purpose of the Federal to provide for the General Welfare. As for DST, here is a good article on the concept, adding only that today States are charged with what is used, Arizona for instance never changes times. http://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/history.html
The preamble, as noted, is an introductory statement outlining that which is contained in a document and inherently carries no weight as the specifics are addressed within the document. Article I Section 8 is specific though as it specifically identifies through it's enumerated powers that which the Congress is delegated to do to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State." If we look at the "enumerated powers" in Article I Section 8 we see that they fall into three categories. They either addresss national defense, providing for the welfare of the nation, or are adminstrative to achieve either "providing for the common Defence or general Welfare of the United States." As I have pointed out to "progressives" is that the listing of enumerated "powers" that provide for the general Welfare of the United States would make no sense if the Congress could do whatever it wanted in this regard. The list becomes moot if Congress can first define anything it wants in what provides for the "general Welfare" and then mandate it under the law. The Constitution states what the States had agreed to as far as providing for the "general Welfare" and only the States can make that decision. Of course the Supreme Court has ruled against my position on this but it was a split decision and I agree with the minority opinion of the Court.
