Time: Thu Aug 07 01:32:31 1997
by usr10.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA07179;
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 18:29:51 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 18:28:48 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Who "signed" the Constitution?
Dear Beverly,
Thank you for this important historical note.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding this
entire message to all clients of the Supreme
Law School. We all appreciate your important
contribution here.
Many tanks, once again!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
<snip>
>
>From: Beverly Kennedy <beverly@flash.net>
>Subject: Re: SLS: Who "signed" the Constitution?
>
>At 05:39 PM 8/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>The states, under the Articles of Confederation,
>>"signed" the U.S. Constitution, and they had
>>standing to do so, under the Declaration of
>>Independence.
>
> But it was NOT the state legislatures that ratified the current
>U.S. Constitution. The delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787,
>who debated the pros and cons of every article and came up with the
>various provisions and compromises, knew that the only way it would
>have the support necessary for its implementation was to get
>ratification directly by the people - the people had to support it,
>or it would have no force. They set up a procedure for special
>ratifying conventions in each state for this purpose - separate from
>the state legislatures.
>
> The records from this convention are available on the internet, at
>Yale University - the "Avalon Project."
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm
> Go to 18th Century - and find "Madison's notes on..."
>I have my own copy of those records, but was thrilled when Madison's
>notes from the convention was put up for all. Now everyone can find
>out the truth - it's well worth the reading, shows what the various
>competing interests were, how they came to the compromises that could
>be lived with, etc.
>
> Beverly
>
>>They are the Real Parties of
>>Interest to that compact. See Article VII,
>>and the record of state ratifications. Don't
>>forget, there was a Congress under the Articles,
>>and the states were fully functioning sovereign
>>governments; that was the legal effect, in
>>international law, of severing their political
>>relationship to the King of England. The language
>>which Thomas Jefferson used in that Declaration
>>was legally sufficient to render the several
>>states as Sovereign, Free, Independent nations --
>>able thereby "to do all other Acts and Things
>>which Independent States may of right do."
>>
>>"And for the support of this Declaration,
>>with a firm reliance on the protection of
>>Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
>>other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred
>>Honor."
>>
>>Amen.
>>
>>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>>http://www.supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>At 07:20 PM 8/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>
>>>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>>>
>>>>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>>>>
>>>>Evan Soule wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>>>>>
>>>>> >The Constitution was 'ordained' to last for millennium. Its concepts
>>>>> > provided for all future changes which could be made by man, inas-
>>>>> > much as the concepts were taken from God's Own plans for the well-
>>>>> > being for humankind. Too many believe, and this is the source of
>>>>> > trouble for this nation (and world), that because the founding
>>>>> > fathers established and ordained the Constitution for the people
>>>>> > (themselves) that it was wrong because it failed to provide a
perm-
>>>>> > anent welfare system which would sustain half of the population
for
>>>>> > the mere 'privilege' of existing; whose existence would be
extract-
>>>>> > ed from the purses of those who did the planning and execution of
>>>>> > the tasks necessary to build a new world.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It is true that those who formed and signed that document were landown-
>>>>> > ers and shrewd businessmen, but from what other group of people
>>>>> > can possibly be drawn a platform for success?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Ray Earnest
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Ray:
>>>>>
>>>>> No one "signed" the Constitution. It was a "committee" document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommended interesting reading:
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO TREASON: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lydander Spooner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evan Soule'
>>>>>
>>>>> -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>>>> -> Posted by: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
>>>>
>>>>Dear Evan, please look up the word 'sign', 'signed', etc. and then get
>>>> back to me if you so please. What you mean is that noone 'inked'
>>>> the Constitution. A nod of the head would 'sign' (approve) some-
>>>> thing. While not perfect, I majored in English in college, and my
>>>> errors stem from haste, not lack of knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Ray Earnest
>>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Ray,
>>>
>>>Since there has been a discussion of the distinctions between the
>>>Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it is within such a
>>>context that the word "signed" has significance. Obviously, the names
>>>affixed to the former document were signed by those who "pledged their
>>>lives, fortunes, sacred honor..." while the latter committee document
>>>contains the names of those whose attendance (and presumed agreement) was
>>>recorded by the secretary.
>>>
>>>I certainly have great respect and admiration for someone like John Hancock
>>>who signed (inked) his name large enough to be clearly read -- these men
>>>were proud to physically sign (ink) their personal names (signatures) upon
>>>that masterful document and they knew the risk they were taking. [That
>>>same level of risk was not the case with those whose names were affixed to
>>>the bottom of the Constitution by the recording secretary.] I have nothing
>>>but total respect for the Declaration of Independence -- in large measure
>>>the product of one man's mind. I'm afraid that (but for the Bill of
>>>Rights) I don't have the same level of respect for the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Evan Soule'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>>>-> Posted by: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
>>B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
>>
>>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
>>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
>>website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
>> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
>> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
>>
>>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
>>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
>>========================================================================
>>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>>
>>
> ________________________
> "Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly
>does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion
>on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the
collision
>of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being
>supplied."
> ---- John Stuart Mill from his treatise 'On Liberty'
> ________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail