Posted by New Kid on September 24, 1998 at 18:04:07:
In Reply to: Re: "supreme Law" examples?!? posted by Two Cities on September 24, 1998 at 11:13:11:
: How does the below language result in differences of application, compared to the
: "Be it enacted by the ..." [check the language of the organic act in my post above. Keep in mind that it is a web document]
RESOLUTION, Civil law. The act by which a contract which existed and was good, is rendered null.
2. Resolution differs essentially from rescission. The former presupposes the contract to have been valid, and it is owing to a cause posterior to the agreement that the resolution takes place; while rescission, on the contrary, supposes that some ice or defect annulled the contract from the beginning. Resolution may be by consent of the parties or by the decision of a competent tribunal; rescission must always be by the judgment of a court. 7 Troplong, de la Vente, n. 689; 7 Toull. 551; Dall. Dict. h. t.
RESOLUTORY CONDITION. On which has for its object, when accomplished, the revocation of the principal obligation; for example, I will sell you my crop of cotton, if my ship America does not arrive in the United States, within six months. My ship arrives in one month, my contract with you is revoked. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 764.
Resolution. A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote;as a legislative resolution. such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution.
"The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject-matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the reuls; a vote of thanks or censure, etc. Such is not law by merely a form in which a legislative body expresses an opinion." Baker v. City of Milwaukee, 271 Or. 500, 533 P2d 772,775.
The chief distinction between a "resolution" and a "law" is that the former is used whenever the legislative body passing it wishes merely to express an opinion as to some given matter or thing and is only to have a temporary effect on such particular ting, while by a "law" it is intended to permanently direct and control matter apply to persons or things in general.
I conclude from the above that a resolution is the only response since Congress is acknowledging that they unlawfully usurped power from the Sovereign People of Hawaii.
"Finally, few Americans know that in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland described the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii as "an act of war committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States without the authority of Congress," and he acknowledged that by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown." [excerpt from Congressional Record -- Senate Wednesday, October 27, 1993 103rd Cong. 1st Sess. 139 Cong Rec S 14477 ]
"...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence." - Senator Slade Gorton (R-Washington), US Senate Congressional Record
Wednesday, October 27, 1993, 103rd Cong. 1st Sess.
I have been familiar with arguements that Congress can only pass resolutions since they were forced into session at gun point to pass all of Lincoln's War Acts. Congress lawfull dissolved in 1863 and ceased to operate since there no longer has a quorum to do business. This is why you always see bills reffered to a H.R. xxx or S.R. xxx instead of H. xxx or S. xxx. I understand the principle however; I am painfully shy of any documentation that overwhelmingly convinces me of this argument.
I hope I have answered your question.
Post a Followup