Re: NewKid..Re: What is "supreme Law"?

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

Posted by New Kid on September 23, 1998 at 16:59:29:

In Reply to: NewKid..Re: What is "supreme Law"? posted by KatNip on September 23, 1998 at 15:52:51:

: Your follow up post is appreciated but left me puzzled as to exactly what "U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10" had to to with said Treaty of Peace (1783). Please elaborate if possible...thanks!

: As you may or may not know the US Const. is simply a REVISION of the Articles of Confederation.

Actually, it was a PERFECTION of the Articles of Confederation.

I must apologise up front for not being able to provide direct quotations for my following statements, I am in the process of moving and everything is all boxed up.

I have come to the conclusion, that what ever Congress wants to do outside of the boundaries of the Constitution or Articles of Confederation, they do by NECESSITY. Necessity, in truth being individual acts of lawlessness, is lawful under the laws of war.[Ref: What supreme law means to Congress,and What supreme law means to Lincoln posted on this message board.] A critical examination of the Lousiana Purchase done under Jefferson will reveal what Jefferson actually purchased was the arsenal at New Orleans and a small amount of land outside the city limits but within the provence where the city lies. The payment for the Lousiana Purchase never arrived in France as the ship was sank off the Florida coast, in an area now held in private hands, owned by most of the wealthiest families in America. Officially, the wreck was never salvaged. To the best of my knowledge, Napolean was never officially paid. The massive land grab was not a part of the original contract between Jefferson and Napolean. The Wasitaw Nation has made these arguments in the International Court at the Hague. It outlines their basis of standing as an Independant nation, how that Spain never transfered those lands to the French when they used them for debt payments they owned, France never actually possessed them to sell, and Napolean knew this when he contracted with Jefferson for the purchase.

Such is similiar history regarding the Texas Republic, in all actuallity, the invasion of U.S. Citizens into the Mexican Territory became an unmanageable mess that Santa Ana couldn't diplomatically controll. By the time Texas won it's independence [under the law of war], it's populations were estimated at 2 or 3:1 of that of Mexico. With the exception of the original 13 colonies [and perhaps Florida, of which I am not sure of it's history] the Western expansion was all predicated under the doctrines of International Law and the law of war. It is claimed that the only treaty made with the indigenous people of America, not violated in the history of the country was the compact made between Roger Williams and the Narragansett when he negotiated for a 50 year peace treaty.

I am delighted with your quotation from Woodrow Wilson. I came to the conclusion two years ago that the sole purpose for creating the U.S. [Federal] Constitution was for commerce. Hamilton, most of all knew this and sought to take advantage of his position amongst friends. The later Bill of Rights, was added to ensure that in their pursuit of international trade and commerce, that the Feds were limited and restricted as it related to the citizens of the several states. Washington D.C. is a model of London Town, in the heart of London. A place and jurisdiction all of its own strictly for the purpose of maritime law and trade.

Also remember, the Treaty of Peace was negotiated with subjects of the Crown. The Title of Esquire is that just below a Gentleman and above a Freeman. To bear the title does require a declaration of loyality to the Crown. Such titles were held by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and at the moment I forget who else's signature is on the Treaty of Peace. This treaty and subsequent treaties of that era were problematic in this regard, that there was a great fear swelling in the nation that loyal Brittish subjects were selling the newly formed nation down the toilet. Thus the passage of the 13th Amendment [The titles of Nobility]. When it came time for Congress to declare it a part of the Constitution, King George ordered his troops to march on Washington and destroy the records at the Library of Congress in 1812. After this was accomplished, it was then that British troops left our soil. These troops were technically a foreign occupying army after the Treaty of Peace was signed. Review exactly was the status of a Nation is when there is a foreign occuping army on their soil. Such as we have today, with the widely publicized and wholely owned and secured, West German base in New Mexico.

I hope I have answered your question, or perhaps I just deviated into another line of reasoning.

New Kid

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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