Re: The rules committee

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on September 22, 1998 at 11:45:26:

In Reply to: What the supreme Law means to me. posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 22, 1998 at 00:17:07:

Language imparts meaning to utterances. At least
if the same language is spoken. Otherwise the avenue
to discourse may be a little longer, augmented by the perception
of mutual gain that can be achieved.

Whether it is efficient to not subject the participants to
the normal delay, associated with a moderated forum can be
considered. However, the work-load for the moderator remains
the same. All traffic has to be read and considered. To maintain
the illusion of a 'soap' box forum, with no physical restrictions
on the ability to post, and at the same time claim that the
forum is a moderated forum, only to be discovered when views run
contrary to certain beliefs, instead of, as could easily be done,
with a large banner at the top of the page, and notice clearly
given. "This is a moderated forum. I the moderator have ultimate
say on what is appropriate subject matter. Behaviour, and language,
such as, snide comments, commonly found in speeches given on the
floor of the House of Representatives, the Senate or House of
Parliament will not be tolerated. We strive for a higher human nature,
hopefully not excluding the common man in the process"

I mentioned contracts once, and although it didn't result in
banner headline censure, at least I interpreted the response as not
being quite on point for this forum. To moderate does of course
require supreme insight and knowledge. Censorship is easier.

Since I am a stickler for language, and particularily the language
by which so called 'lawmaking' assemblies identify themselves,
I'll leave some comments below.

: : With all due respect...

: : you wrote, "We try to keep the discussion on point,
: : and that is the Supreme Law in America."

: : As I'm kind'a new to this group I'd appreciate
: : you letting me, and perhaps other newbies, know
: : exactly what "the discussion on point" is. I'm not
: : certain what you mean by "Supreme Law in America."
: : Are you referring to God's Law as being supreme Law
: : in America or are you referring to a certain
: : constitution? Again, with due respect...if it is
: : a constitution to which you refer...isn't it, that
: : constitution, simply the supreme 'Statute' in America...
: : since Law proper, God's Law, is immutable whereas a
: : constitution may be amended?

: : Thanks!

: : (-:

: Yes, it is the supreme Law, as that term is
: used in the Supremacy Clause. The supreme Law
: embraces the Constitution, Laws, and Treaties
: of the United States.

from Websters unabridgeg (bad choice I know, but it is
in front of me)
Article VI.2
"...,shall be the supreme law of the land, and the
judges in every State, shall be bound thereby, anything
in the Constitution or laws of laws of any State to the
to the contrary notwithstanding."

First of all, the language here does not reference the
Constitution of the United States, as you seem to indicate
above. It references the Constitutions and laws of any State.

The supremacy clause references "This Constitution" which
is named up front, as "establish this Constitution for the
United States of America". The "laws of the United States",
or rather those laws that have been made in pursuance thereof,
are a different matter. Are the "needful rules and regulations"
necessarily made in pursuance thereof. It is quite clear that
the "United States" can have a different constitution, or whatever
nomer one wishes to attach to its top statutory or guiding document.

"supreme law of the land". Now it does not say realm, nation, country
or any number of other easy substitutions. Law of the land, land law.
The ordinances that I have seen, the organic laws, seem to originate
as laws of the land, i.e. the division of terra firma. The pursuance of, is
evidenced in these laws by the style employed, and it ends "in Congress assembled".

Now in my opinion, any 'law' that does not conform to this style, is not made
in pursuance thereof. Of course the codes, strip the style language, and obliterate
the source.

: Of course, no discussion of this subject would
: be complete without considering carefully the
: decisions of courts.

: Article III -- Judiciary -- authorizes constitutional
: courts to exist. Other courts are authorized
: by Articles I and IV. In chief, Article I addresses
: the Congress (law making), and Article II
: addresses the Executive (law enforcement).

: Thus, you have the three key, coordinate branches
: of the federal government.

: Defined in this fashion, there is no way to avoid
: the study of American history, but we prefer
: to couch history in the context of laws,
: treaties, amendments, and cases which have
: set the signposts of that history.

: We are NOT a forum for interpersonal bickering,
: slander, libel, defamation, or insults.
: We had THOUGHT this much was obvious, but
: alas it was not.

: Constitutional law is considered to be the
: premier practice, in the profession of law.

: It calls for the utmost in professional
: integrity, mutual respect, and close
: adherence to the highest standards of
: conduct and intellectual honesty,
: in all situations.

: Constitutional lawyers are required to be
: learned in law. Thus, to know that statutes
: granting original jurisdiction must be
: strictly construed, constitutional lawyers
: are expected to master the principles of
: federal statutory construction.

: For some of the flavor we recommend and prefer,
: confer at "Counsellor at Law" in Bouvier's
: Law Dictionary (1856). This dictionary
: is now published on the Internet.

: The connection between the supreme Law, and
: the religious convictions and values of the
: early Colonists, is a topic which is quite
: worthy of consideration here. The Bill of Rights,
: for example, is widely considered to be a
: stunning embodiment of high moral conduct --
: a blueprint for effective social justice,
: meted out by imperfect human institutions.

: Nevertheless, the First Amendment is expressly
: written to prevent the federal government from
: establishing or respecting any particular religious
: institution, just as it guarantees that
: the People shall forever retain the fundamental
: Right to petition that government for redress
: of their legitimate grievances with it.

: The U.S. Constitution is, quite simply,
: a magnificent work, and it deserves to be
: preserved, protected, and defended for the
: high human ideals it seeks to institute, for the
: essential human freedoms it seeks to perpetuate,
: and for the further development of human potentials
: it seeks to realize, for all generations, now,
: and those to come.

The "UdotSdot Constitution"? The efficiency for a short
abbreviation in an otherwise lengthy document is questionable,
but it does create a fork in the road.

: It is substance over form, principles over
: partisans, that America may be a government
: of laws, and not of men.

: This much is certain.

: And for this much, I have now dedicated my life,
: for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer,
: in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

: It has been a challenging yet happy marriage,
: to be sure, and promises to remain so.

: Sincerely yours,

: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

: Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General,
: Federal Witness, and Agent of the Most High

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]