More Commentary From Neal Ross.........

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Sat Nov 17 21:24:29 MST 2007


Our Dysfunctional Republic

By Neal Ross

Nov. 14, 2007 | Part VIII

Article 5

More on what the Constitution says
>I have already mentioned that in my day to day 
>discussions with people I found that many people 
>were lacking in their understanding of what the 
>Constitution said in regards to the function and 
>authority granted their government. However it 
>came as even more of a shock to find that many 
>were not aware that the Constitution covered 
>much more than the establishment of the federal government.
>
>The next segments of this series are designed to 
>remedy that ignorance in regards to what the 
>rest of the Constitution has to say.
>
>Article 5 of the Constitution covers the states 
>themselves, the text of which states,
>
>Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given 
>in each state to the public acts, records, and 
>judicial proceedings of every other state. And 
>the Congress may by general laws prescribe the 
>manner in which such acts, records, and 
>proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
>
>Section 2. 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.
>
>Section 3. 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.
>
>Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to 
>every state in this union a republican form of 
>government, and shall protect each of them 
>against invasion; and on application of the 
>legislature, or of the executive (when the 
>legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
>
>It might be asked why would a group of men write 
>a Constitution that designs a system of 
>government also include a section regarding the individual states.
>
>First, these men knew that our country would 
>over time grow, and they wanted to ensure that 
>procedures were established for the formation of 
>new states. They also wished to ensure that all 
>states were fair and equitable in their 
>treatment of each other. As Alexander Hamilton 
>said in Federalist Paper #6, "The three last 
>numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an 
>enumeration of the dangers to which we should be 
>exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms 
>and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed 
>to delineate dangers of a different and, 
>perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which 
>will in all probability flow from dissensions 
>between the States themselves, and from domestic 
>factions and convulsions. These have been 
>already in some instances slightly anticipated; 
>but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.
>
>A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations 
>who can seriously doubt that, if these States 
>should either be wholly disunited, or only 
>united in partial confederacies, the 
>subdivisions into which they might be thrown 
>would have frequent and violent contests with 
>each other. To presume a want of motives for 
>such contests as an argument against their 
>existence, would be to forget that men are 
>ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look 
>for a continuation of harmony between a number 
>of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the 
>same neighborhood, would be to disregard the 
>uniform course of human events, and to set at 
>defiance the accumulated experience of ages."
>
>Hamilton goes on to say in Federalist #7, "It is 
>sometimes asked, with an air of seeming triumph, 
>what inducements could the States have, if 
>disunited, to make war upon each other? It would 
>be a full answer to this question to 
>say--precisely the same inducements which have, 
>at different times, deluged in blood all the 
>nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, 
>the question admits of a more particular answer. 
>There are causes of differences within our 
>immediate contemplation, of the tendency of 
>which, even under the restraints of a federal 
>constitution, we have had sufficient experience 
>to enable us to form a judgment of what might be 
>expected if those restraints were removed."
>
>It is clear that the founders wanted to hold the 
>states together and to do so required that some 
>sort of binding rule would be in place to make 
>sure the states were fair in their dealings with 
>the citizens of their neighboring states, and 
>that the laws of one state would be respected by 
>the local governments of their neighbors as well.
>
>I would like to go into a bit more detail 
>regarding Section 4, "The United States shall 
>guarantee to every state in this union a 
>republican form of government, and shall protect 
>each of them against invasion; and on 
>application of the legislature, or of the 
>executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
>
>The federal government is Constitutionally 
>obligated to provide for each state a republican 
>form of government, and offer us overall 
>protection against invasion, and upon the 
>request of the state legislatures, domestic violence.
>
>If a brigade, (between 1,500-3,200 soldiers) 
>were to invade the united states our government 
>would consider that an armed invasion and take 
>drastic measures to repel the invaders and 
>secure our nation from further incursions. 
>However, daily we are being invaded by upwards 
>of 7000 illegal aliens crossing our borders. 
>These unarmed invaders are taking our jobs, 
>causing our wages to be depressed, bringing 
>crime and diseases into our country, using our 
>social services, our medical system, and 
>overburdening our schools. Yet our government 
>refuses to take firm action to stop it. They are 
>paralyzed with fear because the special interest 
>groups that finance their political campaigns 
>demand this supply of cheap labor. The tremble 
>at the thought of offending the politically 
>correct who support these illegal aliens in 
>their so called demand for rights, that in all 
>actuality they have no claim to. Yet it our 
>governments Constitutional obligation to protect 
>us from this very invasion. This issue alone is 
>a clear example of why I entitled this series, Our Dysfunctional Republic.
>
>I do not wish to turn this into a rant regarding 
>the issue of illegal immigration, so I will move 
>on to the second part of Section 4, the 
>requirement that our government provide us with 
>protection, upon request of the states, against domestic violence.
>
>In 1878, our government passed the Posse 
>Comitatus Act of 1878 (USC Title 18 Part I 
>Chapter 67 Section 1385) which states, “Whoever, 
>except in cases and under circumstances 
>expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act 
>of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army 
>or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or 
>otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined 
>under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.“
>
>Yet, since that Act was signed into law we have 
>seen numerous Acts, laws and directives signed 
>which weaken that very act. Among them, in 1971 
>we had D.O.D. Directive 3025.12 the Employment 
>of Military Resources in the Event of Civil 
>Disturbances. Also, taken directly from the 
>Dept. of Homeland Security's webpage;
>
>( http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/committees/editorial_0566.shtm)
>
>The National Response Plan, last updated May 25, 
>2006, and currently under review, establishes a 
>comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance 
>the ability of the United States to manage 
>domestic incidents. The plan incorporates best 
>practices and procedures from incident 
>management disciplines ­ homeland security, 
>emergency management, law enforcement, 
>firefighting, public works, public health, 
>responder and recovery worker health and safety, 
>emergency medical services, and the private 
>sector ­ and integrates them into a unified 
>structure. It forms the basis of how the federal 
>government coordinates with state, local, and 
>tribal governments and the private sector during 
>incidents. It establishes protocols to help
>
>-Prevent an imminent incident, including acts of terrorism, from occurring
>
>-Conduct law enforcement investigations to 
>resolve the incident, apprehend the 
>perpetrators, and collect and preserve evidence 
>for prosecution and/or attribution
>
>Notice now that the Dept. of Homeland Security 
>is coordinating the functions of different 
>agencies, such as law enforcement, which can 
>also include the U.S. military as per D.O.D. 
>Directive 3025.12 and Executive Order 12656.
>
>It is clear that our federal government is 
>overstepping their authority by commandeering 
>the military and local law enforcement agencies 
>for their own purposes upon U.S. soil. All this 
>is taking place without the request of the 
>various state legislatures. These also are clear 
>violations of their Constitutional authority. We 
>are nearing the time when the government can 
>declare martial law for any number of reasons 
>including civil unrest, natural disasters, up to another terrorist attack.
>
>This alone ought to be enough to cause grave 
>concern among the people of this country, yet 
>they have been brainwashed by the media and our 
>elected representatives that these measures are 
>only there for our own safety. President Bush is 
>quoted as saying, "See, in my line of work you 
>got to keep repeating things over and over and 
>over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
>
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
>
>That is what has happened to this country, the 
>same lies and propaganda have been fed to us 
>over and over and we have come to the point 
>where we believe them as truth, when the truth 
>is that these programs are unconstitutional and 
>we should be both concerned and outraged. In 
>concluding my discussion of Article 4 of the 
>Constitution I would like to leave you with a 
>quote by Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that 
>would give up a little liberty to gain a little 
>security will deserve neither and lose both."
>
>...to be continued the week following 
>Thanksgiving. I am taking a break to spend the holiday with my family.
>
>
>Neal Ross
>
>Comments on my writing?
>
>Contact me at: <mailto:bonsai at syix.com>bonsai at syix.com
>
>My other articles may be found at: http://www.neals-soapbox.blogspot.com/


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20071117/e2be075b/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 - Release Date: 11/17/2007 2:55 PM


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list